EDAYATH LYNA Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.570 of 2007 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, and he seeks leave of this Court under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., as he proposed to file an appeal against the judgment dated 19.3.2011 of the above court, by which the accused, who faced the trial for the offence punishable under section 419, 468, 471, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, found not guilty and acquitted.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that, her husband and the first accused had done some business transaction about four years back and later, dispute arose as to the payment of certain sum of money and the first accused demanded back the money which was not due from the husband of the complainant. Thus according to the complainant, the first accused forged two cheque leaves which were issued as security by the complainant for a value of Rs.25,000/- each and on the basis of the said cheques, the accused filed false complaint by misusing those cheques and thereafter the accused with the help of police started to harass the complainant's husband and the accused has also filed complaint before the Magistrate court alleging offence of cheating. It is the further case of the complainant that on 13.9.2004, a person addressing himself to be a man from courier service got the signature of the complainant on two papers and on a book, and delivered a cover addressed to her. According to the complainant, when the cover was opened it contained an old paper with a head note of HDFC. THE allegation continues and it is stated that, on 17.9.2004 at night a person came to the house of the complainant and told her that she had entered into an agreement for sale of her house and the said person threatened her dire consequence and according to the complainant, she was threatened also through telephone. According to the complainant, though a petition was filed before the police, no effective action was taken. It is the further case of the complainant that on 28.2.2005, the complainant received a lawyer notice issued under the instruction of the second accused stating that the complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the second accused, whereby she had agreed to sell her dwelling house for a sale consideration of Rs.6 lakhs and she received an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as advance on 25.9.2004. According to the complainant, it is stated further in the notice that the complainant has to complete the sale transaction after receiving the balance of Rs.1 lakh on or before 15.3.2005, otherwise, it is threatened that legal action would be initiated. According to the complainant, she had caused to issue a reply notice on 2.3.2005. It is the further case of the complainant that she had realised that after getting the signature under the pretext of serving a cover by way of courier service, the signature of the complainant was drawn up in a stamp paper and the stamp paper was converted into a sale agreement. According to her, she had no contact with the second accused and she had never met him. It is averred that the second accused has filed a suit as O.S.No.78 of 2005 in the Sub Court-Thalassery, using forged documents and stating that the complainant has received Rs.5 lakhs. Thus in short, the accused three in numbers has committed the offence punishable under section 419, 468, 471, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC.

(3.) THE crux of the allegation of the complainant is that, accused nos.1 to 3 conspired together and forged her signature in a stamp paper and converted the same into an agreement for sale and using that agreement as a genuine one, they filed a suit for specific performance before the civil court. In para 7 of the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence and materials on record in detail. According to the learned Magistrate, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the person approached her, under the guise of serving cover by way of courier service, is the accused. It is also found that the report of the Director General of Registration department, that Ext.P11 is not sufficient to show that the forgery is committed by the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has specifically stated that she had not put her signature in the document in question-Ext.P10 agreement and she had no transaction with the accused whatsoever. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that Ext.P11 enquiry report of the Director General of Registration Department has held that, there is merit in the complaint regarding the forgery. But according to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate over looked those materials and evidence and found against the complainant and acquitted the accused.