USHAKUMARI B. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 1st accused in CC No. 1211 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -ll, Kollam, for the offences punishable under Ss. 420 and 466 read with Sec. 34 IPC. The petitioner was working as an Amin at the Munsiff's Court, Kollam, who was entrusted with the delivery proceedings in the execution in OS No. 773 of 1996, which was a partition suit. The allegation against the petitioner is that she had deliberately cheated the third defendant by delivering Item No. 2 property having an extent of 1.26 cents to the plaintiff/decree -holder instead of delivering it to the 3rd defendant. The 2nd respondent herein, who is the complainant, who purchased the property later from the 3rd defendant, has field a private complaint before the Court below alleging the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein and the 2nd accused.

(2.) The complainant had preferred a complaint before the learned District Judge, Kollam. The learned District Judge, Kollam initiated disciplinary actions against the petitioner and imposed a punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. An appeal was filed against the said order, to the Administrative side of this Court. The Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) of this Court considered the matter and allowed the appeal in part by ordering the withholding of three increments without cumulative effect. In Annexure -IV order passed by the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), it was clearly found that it was an error committed by the petitioner due to oversight and the same was unintentional.

(3.) One of the offences alleged against the petitioner is one under Sec. 466 IPC. No doubt, the offence under Sec. 466 IPC is one coming under the definition of forgery under Sec. 463 IPC. In Govind Mehta v/s. State of Bihar : (1971) 3 SCC 329: (1971) SCC (Cri) 608: AIR 1971 KHC 653 : 1971 SC 1708 : 1971 CriLJ 1266 followed by the decision of the three Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L Goswami v/s. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur : 1979 KHC 497: (1979) 1 SCC 373 : (1979) SCC (Cri) 311 : AIR 1979 SC 437 : 1979 CriLJ 193, it was held that the offence under Sec. 466 IPC is one falling within the description of the offence of forgery defined in Sec. 463 IPC and therefore, Sec. 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC will takes in the offence under Sec. 466 IPC also. Therefore, no Court can take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 466 IPC except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in that behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Evidently, there is no such complaint in this case alleging an offence under Sec. 466 IPC. Matters being so, the cognizance taken by the Court below for the offence under Sec. 466 IPC is bad in law.