Kerala High Court
Ajith Kumar.N vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 2704 OF 2016 1
2024:KER:59064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2704 OF 2016
CRIME NO.784/2011 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, Wayanad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.774 OF 2013 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,SULTHANBATHERY
PETITIONER/S:
AJITH KUMAR.N
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, AGED 58 YEARS, SUDARSANA,
ELATHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING
AS CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
ANANDAVALLESWARAM BRANCH, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
ANTONY ROBERT DIAS
GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
NISHIL.P.S.
J.VIMAL
A.VELAPPAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
(CRIME NO.784/2011 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION)
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031.
2 K.J.SAJU
S/O.JOSEPH, KALLOLICKAL PUTHENPURA FAIRLAND SULTHAN
BATHERY, PIN: 673 592, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2704 OF 2016 2
2024:KER:59064
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2704 of 2016
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
ORDER
The petitioner was the Chief Manager of the erstwhile State
Bank of Travancore. Crime No. 784/2011 of Sulthan Bathery
Police Station was registered against the petitioner on a private
complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Sulthan Bathery, which was forwarded to the Police. Annexure-I
is the FIR. The defacto complainant is the husband of an
employee of the Bank who was working as Single Window
Operator, while the petitioner was the Manager of the State
Bank of Travancore, Sulthan Bathery Branch, Wayanad.
According to the petitioner, the complaint is filed in connection
with the discharge of the official functions of the petitioner as
Manager of the Sulthan Bathery Branch, Wayanad. In the
2024:KER:59064
complaint, it is alleged that the casual leave application
submitted by his wife/employee of the bank was rejected by the
petitioner and thereby ill- treated the bank employee. It is
further alleged that when a complaint was preferred by his
wife/employee before the Kerala Women's Commission,
Thiruvananthapuram, in respect of ill-treatment by the
petitioner, a forged document was submitted by the petitioner
before the Women's Commission to mislead the commission and
thereby caused to dismiss the complaint filed by his wife.
According to the petitioner, the alleged commission of forgery
attributed against the petitioner is correction of date of rejection
of the casual leave application submitted by the complainant's
wife/employee of the Bank. According to the petitioner, even if
the entire allegations are accepted, the offence alleged is not
attracted.
2. It is submitted that during 2008, the petitioner while
working as the Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Sulthan
Bather Branch, the complainant's wife-Smt. Jamine K.Sam was
2024:KER:59064
working as a Single Window Operator in the said branch. The
employee had submitted a casual leave application on
03.09.2008 and 04.09.2008 and the same was rejected by the
petitioner on 07.09.2008 based on the decision taken in the staff
meeting held on 04.09.2008. The complainant's wife took up the
matter before the Kerala Women's Commission. A complaint was
filed before the Women's Commission against the petitioner
alleging ill-treatment by the petitioner in the nature of assigning
extra work to employee and forced to work beyond the Bank's
working hours. On the complaint filed by the employee before
the Women's Commission, the Commission had issued notice
to the petitioner seeking his version on the complaint. The
petitioner by his representation dated 30.12.2008, submitted his
version before the Women's Commission. Annexure-II is the
representation submitted by the petitioner before the Director,
Kerala Women's Commission. It is submitted by the petitioner
that after satisfying with the explanation submitted by the
petitioner, Women's Commission found that the complaint filed
2024:KER:59064
by the petitioner is baseless and false and the Commission
dismissed the complaint filed by the employee. After the
dismissal of the above complaint, the employee preferred
another complaint before the Women's Commission and the
same was also rejected is the submission. It is also submitted by
the petitioner that based on the complain filed by the employee
against the petitioner before the Women's Commission, the Chief
Manager attached to the Zonal Office, Kozhikode conducted an
enquiry about the complaint filed by the employee and submitted
a report before the Bank. It is after a lapse of three years, a
criminal complaint has been filed against the petitioner before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Bathery
alleging commission of forgery in the date of rejecting the casual
leave application submitted by the bank employee is the
submission. It is also alleged that the forgery was committed to
mislead the Women's Commission. The complaint is preferred by
the husband of the employee and not the employee herself.
2024:KER:59064
3. Annexure-III is the final report submitted by the Police.
According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are
accepted, no offence is made out.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent.
5. This Court perused Annexure-III final report. The
prosecution case in Annexure-III is that the petitioner while
working as the Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Sulthan
Bathery Bank had rejected the casual leave application
submitted by the employee of the bank and when the same is
challenged before the Kerala Women's Commission, a forged
document was submitted before the Commission by the
petitioner. Alleged forgery is the correction of the date on
rejection of the casual leave application.
6. It is an admitted fact that even if the correction in the
leave application is accepted, no damage or injury to the public
or anybody happened. The employer of the wife of the defacto
2024:KER:59064
complainant was the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore. The
Bank has no case that the leave application is forged by the
petitioner. No undue benefit will get to the petitioner because of
the alleged forgery is the submission. In such circumstances,
whether the offence is attracted is the point to be decided.
7. The counsel for the petitioner relied the judgment of
the Apex Court in Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and anr. [(2010) 1 SCC 322]. I think the dictum in the above
judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances
of this case. The relevant portion of the above judgment is
extracted hereunder :
"26. The only allegation which appears from the first
information report is that the appellant altered the date from
"6-5-2002" to "16-5-2002" and "7-5-2002" to "17-5- 2002" and
"27-5-2002". It seems from the certified copy that though she
had applied for the certified copies of the revenue records on 6-
5-2002 and the same were made available to her on 7-5-2002,
she altered those dates in the copies filed by her in the court to
"16-5-2002" and "17-5-2002" as also "27-5-2002". This is all the
forgery which has been complained of by Respondent 2 in the
aforementioned FIR. It is only on this basis that it is suggested
that the said civil suits were filed on 27-5-2002 and a false
2024:KER:59064
affidavit was sworn by the appellant. It is pointed out that in
that affidavit also she had given the wrong dates. The only basis
for this allegation is in the following words:
"This interpolation of dates is apparent because from 15-5-
2002 to 30-5-2002 no one inspected the records of Khata
No. 40 of Village Beehat. That in the letter dated 26-9-2002
it has been made clear that the certified copy with regard to
Khata No. 40 situated in Village Beehat Khatauni 1-4-2002
to 1-4-2007 was got ready on 7-5- 2002 itself."
It is then contended that:
"Smt Parminder Kaur in order to cause loss to the applicant
interpolated the dates of revenue records and thus the
documents are forged and the same were produced in the court
in order to defraud the court and false affidavit has been filed in
the court which is a crime....'
27. We specifically put a query to Shri Das, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. as also to the
learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 to show us as to what
advantage would the appellant be put to by changing the dates
from "6" to "16" and "7" to "17" or as the case may be "27" and
how loss would be caused to Respondent 2. Learned counsel
were not able to answer the question. At one point of time in the
innumerable affidavits which were filed before us and as also in
the written submissions on behalf of Respondent 2 it is asserted
that this has been done by the appellant to save the limitation.
We again asked the learned counsel as to how the limitation
could be saved by adding "1" before the figure "6-5-2002" and
2024:KER:59064
"7-5 -2002" to which the learned counsel had no answer and
indeed they could not have any such answer.
28. The case of the appellant throughout appears to be that
she did not do it. Firstly, she contends that she did not file the
civil suit on 27-5-2002 because she was not present at the time
of filing of the civil suit on 27-5-2002 and that the civil suits
appear to have been filed through her counsel Shri O.P. Gupta.
She had made very serious allegations against Shri Gupta. We
will not go into those allegations as we are not called upon to do
so nor do we find it necessary to do so. However, the fact
remains that even if we presume that somebody interpolated
the records by adding the figure "1" and even if it is presumed
that the appellant did so, still it does not become a forged
document.
29. The first section of IPC alleged against the appellant is
Section 420 and we are at a complete loss to understand as to
how the offence could even be alleged against the appellant on
the basis of the so-called forgery. Therefore, that section is out
of question. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC which
reads as under:
"463. Forgery.-Whoever makes any false documents or
false electronic record or part of a document or
electronic record, with intent to cause damage or
injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any
claim or title, or to cause any person to part with
property, or to enter into any express or implied
contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud
may be committed, commits forgery."
2024:KER:59064
We do not find as to how the change brought in by adding
figure "1" could cause damage or injury to public or anybody or
how it could support the claim or title or how it could cause any
person to part with property or for that matter how there could
be any intention to commit fraud.
30. xxxx xxxx
31. xxxx xxxx
32. xxxx xxxx
33. The first clause suggests that a person makes a false
document if he -
1) dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or
executes a document, or part of a document, or makes any
mark denoting the execution of a document; and
(2) does as above with the intention of causing it to be
believed that such document or part of a document was made,
signed, sealed or executed,
(a) by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose
authority it was not so made, signed, sealed or executed,
or
(b) at a time at which he knows that it was not made,
signed, sealed or executed;
It is not the case here. To attract the second clause of Section
464 there has to be alteration of document dishonestly and
fraudulently. So in order to attract clause "Secondly" if the
document is to be altered it has to be for some gain or with
such objective on the part of the accused. Merely changing a
2024:KER:59064
document does not make it a false document. Therefore,
presuming that the figure "1" was added as was done in this
case, it cannot be said that the document became false for the
simple reason that the appellant had nothing to gain from the
same. She was not going to save the bar of limitation.
34. The last offence which is alleged against the appellant is
Section 471 IPC. This section is not applicable in the case of
the appellant for the simple reason that we have already found
that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the
appellant nor had she acted fraudulently. This section applies
only in case of the use of a forged document as a genuine
document. Since we have found that there is no element of
forgery at all, there would be no question of there being any
valid allegation against the appellant.
35. We are surprised at the manner in which the investigation
was done and the manner in which the cognizance was taken
by the courts below. In its written submissions also the State
has merely justified that the figure of "1" was added in order to
show that there was no laches or negligence for filing the civil
suits. We do not understand as to how ten days could have
amounted to laches or negligence because ultimately the suits
seem to have been filed after ten days."
8. In the light of the above dictum, I am of the considered
opinion that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no
2024:KER:59064
offence under Secs. 465 an 471 IPC is made out. Adv. Monayi,
who appears for the 2nd respondent takes me through Annexure-
III and submitted that there is a case of forgery and therefore, it
is a matter of evidence. But, even if there is a correction in the
date on the leave application, the same will not attract the
offence alleged in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex
Court in Parminder Kaur's case (supra). Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that even if the entire allegations are
accepted, no offence is made out. The upshot of the above
discussion is that the Criminal Miscellaneous case is to be
allowed.
9. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.
774/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-
I, Sulthan Bathery arising from Crime No. 784/2011 of Sulthan
Bathery Police Station are quashed.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
2024:KER:59064
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.784/2011
DATED 12/10/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, SULTHAN BATHERY.
AII TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
NO.C1/5111/WND/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA WOMEN'S
COMMISSION
AIII TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.774/2013 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I, SULTHAN
BATHERY, DATED 27/8/2013
AIV TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER
