C LATHIKA JANU Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 120B and 465 r/w. 34 I.P.C.

(2.) The crux of the allegations raised by the petitioner in the complaint filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, is that the accused persons had conspired to forge Ext.P6 statement of one Babu for production before the High Court of Kerala in O.P.No. 1468 of 2001. That Original Petition was dismissed by the High Court as per judgment dt. 19.10.2001.

(3.) The petitioner's grievance was that Ext.P6 statement produced by the accused persons before the High Court was a forged document, which they had forged earlier and produced before the High Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation, felt that the alleged offence of forging Ext.P6 was committed within the jurisdiction of Chathannur police station. Accordingly, the crime was transferred to the Chathannur police station for investigation. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a refer report before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, i.e., J.F.C.M., Paravur. On receipt of notice from the court about that refer report, the petitioner entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and raised objections against the refer report. She also prayed that further investigation may be directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, copy of which is produced as Ext.P8, rejected the said prayer and dismissed the application.