P.G.Ravikumar vs Tom Thomas
2021 Latest Caselaw 675 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

                    Crl.MC.No.4991 OF 2019(D)

  [C.C. NO.10/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                         COURT,KOTTAYAM]


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

             P.G.RAVIKUMAR
             AGED 59 YEARS
             S/O.GOVINDHAPILLAI, KAVIL HOUSE, ERAVINALLOOR.P.O.,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686011.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
             SMT.K.R.MONISHA

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

      1      TOM THOMAS,
             S/O.N.J.THOMAS, NILACKAPPALLIL HOUSE, S/VI/216/A,
             THRIKKAKKARA, KANNAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -
             682021.

      2      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.


OTHER PRESENT:

             R2 SRI.SANTOSH PETER, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.M.C.No.4991 of 2019                      2



                                  O R D E R

Dated this the 8th day of January 2021 ..

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.10

of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court, Kottayam.

2. The above case was taken on file based on

Annexure-A private complaint.

3. The case of the complainant is that,

accused Nos.1 and 2 forged the signature of one

N.T. Francis, brother of accused No.1 and the 1st

respondent on two vakalathnamas filed before the

Sub Court, Kottayam on its transfer from Sub

Court, Pala. The learned Magistrate took

cognizance for the offences under Sections 468

and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The

prayer in this petition is to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, the 1st accused in Annexure-A

complaint approached this Court for quashing the

proceedings and as per the order dated 17.1.2019

in Crl.M.C.No.5812 of 2018 this Court quashed the

entire proceedings against the 1st accused. The

counsel submitted that, in the light of the

above judgment, the substratum of this case

destroyed and the continuance of the prosecution

against the petitioner herein is an abuse of

process of law.

6. After hearing both sides, I think, there

is some force in the argument of the petitioner.

This Court, after considering the entire aspects,

quashed the proceedings against the 1st accused

as per the judgment dated 17.1.2019 in

Crl.M.C.No.5812 of 2018. The relevant portion of

the judgment is extracted hereunder:

"5. I have perused Annexure-Q complaint and Annexure-R sworn statement of the first respondent given under section 200 Cr.P.C. In

the complaint it is stated that the vakalaths allegedly containing the forged signature of Francis were sent for examination and the first respondent knew that the signatures are not genuine. This is strange. The vakalths have been in the custody of the Sub Court. How the first respondent could send it for examination. And it is not disclosed who sent them or to whom they were sent for examination.

6. In the Annexure-R sworn statement the first respondent has no case of sending the vakalaths for examination. In Annexure-Q complaint it is stated that petitioner forged the signatures of the Francis in the vakalaths and handed them to his advocate. It is not disclosed how he came to know about it.

7. In Annexure-Q complaint it is stated that Francis is an alshimers patient, he cannot remember even his name and cannot recognize any one. Sworn statement of one Dr.Joseph Sebastian was recorded during the enquiry. He stated that since April 2015 Francis has been under his treatment for alshimers and loss of memory and inability to do things properly are its characteristics. The vakalaths in the Sub Court were executed on 02.03.2016 and 08.02.2017.

8. Merely because Francis is an alshimers patient it cannot be said that the

signatures in the vakalath are not genuine. The only allegation in the sworn statement of the first respondent is that the Francis is an alshimers patient, he is laid up and he cannot recognize anyone. That is the only basis for him to allege that the signatures of Francis are not genuine. The doctor has no case that Francis was not able to put his signature. What he has said is that Francis cannot understand the nature of the documents he execute. That may may be a good reason to hold that the vakalath is not valid, but not a good reason to take the view that the signature in it is not genuine.

9. The complaint was filed when the suits came up for trial. The first respondent filed Annexure N and O applications in the Sub Court, Kottayam to appoint the petitioner guardian of Francis. This is very significant in nature of the case. In Annexure-N and O affidavit the first said that the petitioner "has no interest adverse to the interest" of Francis and they filed joint written statement. While the two suits were pending in the Sub Court, Pala the first respondent filed an affidavit stating that Francis forged his (first respondent's) signature in a settlement deed.

10. The discussion made above compels me to hold that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint. It is liable

to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kottayam are quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned."

7. In the light of the above finding of this

Court, I think, the prosecution against the

petitioner is an abuse of process of law.

Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All

further proceedings against the petitioner in

C.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam are quashed.

Sd/-

                                             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   pkk                                             JUDGE




                              APPENDIX
   PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

   ANNEXURE A             CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN

C.M.P.NO.3528/2017 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM, DATED 3.8.2017.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.M.P.NO.3528/2017 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM, DATED 3.8.2018.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF DR.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN DATED 13.9.2017 IN C.M.P.NO.3528/2017 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM.

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HO'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.5812/2018 DATED 17.1.2019.

ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SHIJI FRANCIS IN CRL.M.C.NO.5812/2018 DATED 3.9.2018.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/-

P.S. TO JUDGE