JANAHI Vs. PETER ROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case has been preferred against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, dated 11.02.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.2293/2010. The circumstances under which the present criminal revision case came to be filed, can be narrated in a nutshell.

(2.) BASED on the complaint of the revision petitioner, a case was registered on the file of Karungal Police Station in Crime No.276/2010 for alleged offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 IPC. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation, submitted a negative final report in the said case on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. A copy of a document purporting to be an intimation given to the de- facto complainant (the petitioner in the revision case) was also produced in the said court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a protest petition praying that the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, should not accept the final report and on the other hand should take cognizance of the offences based on the materials collected during the investigation. Incidentally in the said protest petition, the de-facto complainant therein (the present revision petitioner) had submitted that the signature found in the notice regarding the presentation of the referred charge-sheet was not her signature and the same had been forged by someone else. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, without passing any order on merit, simply closed the protest petition stating that the de-facto complainant could take separate action. Thereafter, the revision petitioner chose to approach the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil by way of a private complaint praying for the prosecution of the first respondent herein for offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 Cr.P.C. based on the facts on which Crime No.276/2008 on the file of Karungal Police Station had been registered and a negative final report had been filed and also for prosecuting and punishing the second respondent herein for alleged offences under sections 109, 166, 167 and 218 of Indian Penal Code based on the allegation that the document containing a forged acknowledgment had been produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel in Crime No.276/2010 as proof of service of notice regarding presentation of a referred charge-sheet. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses produced by the complainant, postponed the issue of process and passed an order dismissing the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. after considering the complaint, the sworn statements and other materials. As against the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil dated 11.02.2011, the present criminal revision case came to be filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel failed to take into account the information furnished by the revision petitioner, in the form of averments made in the protest petition, to the effect that one of the documents produced in the case before the said court was a forged one and exercise his powers by conducting a preliminary enquiry contemplated under section 340(1) Cr.P.C. and on the other hand, simply passed a one line order to the effect that the de-facto complainant/protest petitioner could initiate separate proceedings. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of such an order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, the petitioner had to approach the District Magistrate, namely the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner would try to justify the preference of the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, pointing out the powers given to the appellate court under section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. with the contention that the Judicial Magistrate being subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Chief Judicial Magistrate should be construed to be the appellate authority and that the same was the reason why the said complaint was preferred on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. This court is not in a position to countenance the above said contention. For better appreciation, the entire section 340 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder: