ASHA Vs. P K JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When a petition/complaint in writing made before the Magistrate contains allegations as to commission of a cognizable offence by a person and the only relief sought or prayer made in it is for forwarding it to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for investigation, can it not be treated as a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code? This question arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The husband of the petitioner died on 06.07.1990 in a motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, certain disputes arose with regard to her share in the property owned by her husband. The petitioner instituted the suits O.S.No.717/1995 and O.S.No.718/1995, through her power of attorney, in the Sub Court, Ernakulam for resolving the disputes. She filed O.P.(MV) No.2058/1990 and her mother-inlaw filed O.P.(MV) No.2132/1990 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming compensation for the death of her husband in the accident. Against the award passed by the Tribunal in these cases, the petitioner and her mother-in-law filed appeals as M.F.A.Nos.84 of 2001 and 136 of 2001 before this Court. The first respondent was the lawyer engaged by the petitioner.

(3.) On 04.10.2011, the petitioner filed a complaint as C.M.P.No.3148/2011 in the Magistrate's Court concerned against the first respondent, her lawyer, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged in the complaint that when she visited the office of the first respondent on 30.03.2011, she came to know that all the cases mentioned above were settled on the basis of a compromise petition dated 22.07.2002 filed before this Court. The power of attorney holder of the petitioner obtained a copy of the compromise petition from the first respondent on 28.09.2011. He was then shocked to find that the signature in the compromise petition was not that of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the first respondent colluded with her mother-in-law and forged the signature of the petitioner and cheated her. The petitioner has further alleged in the complaint that the first respondent misappropriated the amount received by way of demand draft pursuant to the compromise.