ROCKY V A Vs. V I VAKKACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are in challenge of separate orders passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy in CC No. 150 of 2000. Petitioner who is the complainant in the Court below requested that Court to reopen the case to adduce further oral and documentary evidence. He also requested that the original of a partnership deed which is alleged to be forged by respondent Nos. 6 be summoned from one P. V. George. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petitions.

(2.) Facts necessary for consideration of these revisions are: Petitioner, along with respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had formed a partnership by name 'Johnson Enterprises' which was engaged in money lending business. In the year 1982 at a time when according to the petitioner he was abroad, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with the connivance of respondent No.6 created a partnership deed forging signature of petitioner and formed a new partnership by name 'M/s. Chalakudy Auto Finance'. In the year 1984 one of partners of M/s. Chalakudy Auto Finance, one P. V. George filed OS No. 518 of 1994 in the Court of learned Munsiff Irinjalakuda for dissolution of that partnership. Petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 12 in that suit. According to the petitioner, he learned about the forgery and formation of partnership by name 'M/s. Chalakudy Auto Finance' only when he received summons in that case. He applied for a certified copy of the partnership deed in that Court. Petitioner states that by that time, the original partnership deed was taken back by the plaintiff in that suit. That suit was disposed of as per judgment dated 21/08/96, (Annexure-A7 is the copy of judgment). It is stated in para 8 of that judgment about contention of petitioner that he had not signed the disputed partnership deed that the contention was not seriously challenged by the plaintiff in that case and that learned Munsiff was satisfied about the truth of the contention in the light of documents produced by petitioner in that case. Learning about the forgery of the partnership deed petitioner preferred a private complaint in the Court below. That complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation. After one year and 11 months, police submitted final report referring the case as mistake of fact according to the petitioner, at the influence of the then DYSP, Irinjalakuda. Petitioner was not satisfied with that report and filed a protest complaint alleging offences punishable under S.467, 468 and 471 r/w S.34 of the Penal Code (for short, 'the Code'). After complying with the mandatory formalities case was taken on file as CC No. 150 of 2000. There was a petition to transfer the case from the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy. That petition was dismissed. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed criminal MC No. 6455 of 2000 in this Court to quash the cognizance taken against them. That petition was dismissed in the year 2004. Respondent No. 6 then filed Criminal MC No. 1454 of 2004 to quash the cognizance taken against him. That petition was dismissed in the year 2007. In 2008, recording of evidence on the side of petitioner started. Petitioner filed an application to summon the relevant documents including the original partnership deed from the Registrar of firms. The Registrar produced certain documents but that did not include the original partnership deed. The documents produced by the Registrar ware subjected to expert examination and according to the petitioner, the report indicated that he has not signed those documents. In the meantime M/s Chalakudy Auto Finance filed a suit against a 3rd party for realisation of money. Petitioner states that the original partnership deed was produced in that case. Learning that, he filed Annexure-A4 petition in the Civil Court on 30/06/1999 requesting that the documents be detained. Learned Munsiff ordered that the documents will be detained. Later that suit was withdrawn and all the documents including the original partnership deed ordered to be detained were taken back by the plaintiff. Evidence of petitioner in CC No. 150 of 2000 was recorded. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were questioned under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the CrPC'). During that stage petitioner filed the present CMPs in the Court below, one under S.91 of the CrPC to direct Sri. P. V. George to produce the original partnership deed and the other, under S.311 of the CrPC to recall petitioner for further evidence and to examine certain other witnesses also. All the petitions were dismissed. Crl RP No. 598 of 2009 arises from dismissal of petition under S.311 of the CrPC. Crl RP No. 601 of 2009 arises from dismissal of the petition under S.91 of the CrPC. Learned counsel contented that to prove the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to summon the original partnership deed, that document is in the possession of Sri. P. V. George and that further examination of petitioner is necessary to prove the case. It is also contended that petitioner had taken every step to get the original partnership deed though those attempts were not fruitful.

(3.) Leaned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 contend that revision petitions are not maintainable in view of bar under S.397(2) of the CrPC the impugned orders are interlocutory in character and did not effect any right of the parties. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickan, 2009 KHC 364 : 2009 (2) Supreme 526 : 2009 (1) KLD 826 : 2009 (3) SCALE 840 : 2009 (5) SCC 153. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the dismissal of the petitions is justified and that attempt of the petitioner as to prolong the proceedings.