MALAYAPPAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMBUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to call for the records in Cr.No.70 of 2005 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

(2.) A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus: One Manickam Pillai filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2004 in the Sub Court, Dindigul for specific performance of the agreement to sell executed between Silampanan Gounder and Veluchamy on the one side and himself on the other side. The said Veluchamy was one of the defendants in O.S.No.23 of 2004 in the Sub Court, Dindigul. It was he who initiated criminal action by lodging a complaint with the police who registered the case in Cr.No.70 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 469, 471 and 120(B) I.P.C on the allegation that in the said suit, the receipt dated 05.12.2001 for Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) allegedly signed by Silampanan Gounder and Veluchamy, was filed by forging the signature of Veluchamy. According to Veluchamy, Silampana Gounder happened to be the employer of Manickam Pillai who colluded with the other accused and forged such a receipt.

(3.) PER contra, by way of torpedoing and gainsaying, challenging and impugning the allegations and averments on the petitioners' side, the learned Counsel for the second respondent would contend by placing reliance on the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Mennakshi Marwah and another reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 370 that subsequent criminal prosecution could rightly be proceeded and in no way, it would be a bar under any law in force. He would also submit that relating to the fact of the obtention of order from the Magistrate and taking away the original receipt from the Sub Court, the defacto complainant was not a party and he may not be held responsibility and he leaves it to the Court to decide about the correctness of the procedure adopted by the police in that regard.