ABU S/O KUNHIMOOSAHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order in an unnumbered C.M.P in M.C.No.351 of 2015 of the Family Court, Malappuram dated 10.01.2018. Appellant in person was the petitioner in M.C.No.351 of 2015 and also in O.P.No.614 of 2015, both of which were pending before the Family Court, Malappuram. Both the above cases were tried jointly. One Mujeeb Rahman was examined in that case as PW2. During the cross examination of PW2, he was confronted with one document, which was produced as Ext.B6, stated to be a receipt issued by one Fathima dated 25.01.2015. One Mujeeb Rahman was shown as the first witness to that document. PW2, when confronted with this document and subsequently asked whether he has signed Ext.B6 as a witness, he denied it. He asserted that, it was not written in his handwriting and that, he has not signed the document. In the course of examination, PW2 had also deposed that, Fathima, who is the petitioner in M.C.No.351 of 2015 and O.P.No.614 of 2015 did not have direct brothers.

(2.) Thereupon, the present unnumbered CMP was filed by the appellant in person contending that, both the above statements made by Mubjeeb Rahman on oath were false and he is liable to be prosecuted for perjury. The allegation was that, Ext.B6 was in fact, signed by Mujeeb Rahman but, at the time of cross examination, he denied his own signature in Ext.B6. It was alleged that, to get over the criminal liability, he signed differently on his deposition. It was contended that, other documents available on the Court records showed that the signature of Mujeeb Rahman had striking similarity with that of the signature seen in Ext.B6 against the name of Mujeeb Rahman. It was further contended that, Fathima had direct brothers. On this premise, he asserted that, Mujeeb Rahman had given false evidence and he was liable to prosecution. The said Mujeeb Rahman was shown as the respondent in the above unnumbered CMP.

(3.) Court below, after hearing both sides, by the impugned order, dismissed the application holding that the appellant in person did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate his contention and prima facie, there was nothing on record to show that Mujeeb Rahman had committed perjury. This is assailed in this appeal.