RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. SANJU THURUTHIKUNNEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONS filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "Cr.P.C."). Petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 3308 of 2011 are the accused in a complaint case filed by the 1st respondent alleging the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegations in the complaint are that the petitioners, who are the Secretary, President and Chairman of the Standing Committee of a Grama Panchayat, conspired together and expended an amount of Rs. 1,34,007/ - from the funds of the Panchayat without inviting tenders or preparing an estimate or inviting a quotation. They did so to make an unlawful gain for themselves. Furthermore, they committed forgery to manipulate the records. It is alleged that thereby they have committed the above said offences. Annexure -I therein is the copy of the complaint. After holding an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Annexure -II is the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences.

(2.) THE parties are hereinafter referred to as the complainant and the accused for brevity and clarity. Crl.M.C. No. 3308 of 2011 is taken as the leading case.

(3.) PENDING enquiry, the complainant submitted an application under Sections 311A Cr.P.C. and 73 of the Evidence Act (in short, "the Act") requesting the assistance of the court to obtain the handwriting of the accused for the purpose of comparing with the disputed handwriting. Annexure -III is the copy of the petition submitted by the complainant before the learned Magistrate. After considering the matters, learned Magistrate passed Annexure -IV order, which is impugned in these proceedings. Learned Magistrate found that the prayer for granting relief under Section 311A Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in the established facts. However, learned Magistrate allowed the prayer under Section 73 of the Act, Feeling aggrieved by the denial of one of the prayers, the complainant preferred Crl.M.C. No. 2631 of 2012.