G MUNIVELU Vs. S MASILAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been preferred against the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 2356 of 1998 in C. C. No. 902 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.

(2.) CRL. M. P. NO. 2356 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner-Munivelu to stay the operation of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, in C. M. P. No. 1902 of 1998, which was filed under Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, (herein after referred to as 'the Act' ). The Petitioner in his petition would allege that the respondent-Masilamani on the basis of fabricated and concocted document obtained an order of registration of his birth in C. M. P. No. 1902 of 1998, thereby respondent-Masilamani has committed an offence under Section 468 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed C. M. P. No. 2356 of 1998 preferred by the petitioner-Munivelu on the ground that an order has already been passed under Section 13 (3) of the Act in C. M. P. No. 1902 of 1998 and there was no document produced by the petitioner to show that by producing fabricated and concocted document an order has been obtained in C. M. P. No. 1902 of 1998 and the Judicial Magistrate has observed that if at all the petitioner wants to challenge the order passed by him (Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam), in C. M. P. No. 1902 of 1998, the petitioner has to prefer an appeal or revision before the appropriate forum basing his reliance on a dictum in 1992 LW (Crl) 16 (Velu Vs. Malthi w/o. Shanmugam) the learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed C. M. P. No. 2356 of 1998. Against the said order of dismissal, this revision has been filed.

(3.) WHEN the revision was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel Mr. A. Muthuraman appearing for the revision petitioner fairly conceded that the remedy open to the revision petitioner is to challenge the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, in C. M. P. No. 1902 of 1998 before the appropriate forum and not to file a petition to stay or cancel the order passed in C. M. P. No. 1902 of 1998 before the same Magistrate. The relevant observation in the above cited ratio decidendi pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner runs as follows:-