ANNAMMA JOY Vs. V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the original complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor as well as the accused. In fact, the accused who are the respondents are not entitled to be heard at all under law inasmuch as the impugned order happened to be passed in a proceeding under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the CrPC ).

(2.) The petitioner challenges an order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perumbavoor in C.M.P. No.718/2017 filed by the complainant seeking to summon the Sub Registrar, Perumbavoor, directing production of two documents in the custody of the Registrar.

(3.) The accused are husband and wife. The complainant is wife represented by her husband before the court below. The complainant and accused along with four other persons were partners of 'Gandhi Towers'. The partnership firm owned 15.250 cents of land in Re-survey No.8 in the joint names of the partners. Later, all the partners except the accused retired from the partnership firm and it was reconstituted.