VINCENT RODRIGEX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the second accused in Crime No.174 of 2013 of Kalady Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 415, 417, 420, 468 and 120(b) r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the first accused subscribed to three chitties started by the de facto complainant and prized the same. The first accused received the amount and executed agreement for repayment of the amount due to the de facto complainant with the petitioner and another as the guarantors. Later it was revealed that the petitioner described himself as husband of first accused but put a different signature to cheat the de facto complainant and collected money from the de facto complainant along with other accused.

(3.) I am not going to the nature of forgery allegedly committed by the petitioner. Interrogation of the petitioner is required. Moreover, his presence is required to collect specimen signature/handwriting etc. I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions and protecting the interest of de facto complainant.