K SUNDARARAJAN Vs. R CHELLAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 14.03.2007 made in Crl.R.C.No,25 of 2006 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No,3), Dharapuram, by confirming the order dated 30.01.2006 made in Crl.M.P.No,632 of 2005 in C.C.No.179 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram and direct the Judicial Magistrate to allow the petition made in C.M.P.No,632 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam.) The prayer of the petitioner herein is to set aside the order dated 14.03.2007 made in Crl.R.C.No,25 of 2006 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, by confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in Crl.M.P.No,632 of 2005 in C.C.No.179 of 2002 on his file and to allow Crl.M.P.No. 632 of 2005.

(2.) IT is alleged by the petitioner that he filed a private complaint against the respondents herein for offences under Sec. 468, 467 and 471 IPC. The Learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as CC.No.179 of 2002. The allegation in the complaint is that on 01.06.2001, the respondents herein forcibly took the petitioner herein and obtained his signatures on various documents and also thumb impression in the Registrar Office at Kankeyam, that with the help of forged power of attorney obtained loan from Canara Bank and that the petitioner filed Criminal M.P.No,632 of 2005 to call for the documents stated in the above petition from the Sub-Rregistrar office and Canara Bank, Kankeyam and sent the same for expert's opinion regarding authenticity of signatures in the document and also thumb impression and to examine the expert, pertaining to the alleged forged document. IT is the further averment of the petitioner that the signature found in the receipt issued by the Sub-Registrar office, Kankeyam for registering the power of attorney dated 26.02.2001 is not signed by the petitioner and it is a forged one and that the left thumb impression found in the Thumb Impression Register was obtained from the petitioner by threat and coercion but the signature found in the thumb impression is not that of the petitioner. IT is the grievance of the petitioner that the reasons given by the courts below for dismissing the Cr.M.P.No,632 of 2005 are untenable and unjust and contrary to Law and the courts below erred in law in coming to the conclusion that already the alleged forged documents were compared with the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner. The petitioner's further submission is that the courts below ought to have rejected the expert opinion since the opinion given by the expert was on the basis of xerox copies of alleged documents and not by comparison of the alleged documents with the original. IT is further stated by the petitioner that the expert opinion was given only on request by Police and not by the petitioner and hence the conclusion of the courts below that no appeal, with respect to the experts opinion, was filed is erroneous. The petitioner further submits that he had filed a Civil Suit seeking to prove his title over the property and to set aside the General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by the petitioner on 26.02.2006, in O.S.No,218 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kankeyam. The findings of the Courts below that the Civil Court dealt with the same subject matter is erroneous. IT is stated by the petitioner that he is seeking to get the expert opinion only to prove forgery committed by the respondents herein and the expert opinion will definitely be of help for deciding the case. The petitioner therefore submits that this court may set aside the orders of the Court below and allow Criminal M.P.No,632 of 2005.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that when an earlier Criminal Revision filed was dismissed by the Sessions Court, the person aggrieved cannot knock the doors of the High Court by way of a petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., and hence the present petition filed by the petitioner herein is not sustainable. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in -Kailash Verma ..Vs.. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and another ((2005) 2 Supreme Court cases 571)- wherein the Supreme Court held that