Kerala High Court
Highness Investments And Financiers vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd on 13 November, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
WP(C) No.11901/2024 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Wednesday, the 13th day of November 2024 / 22nd Karthika, 1946
IA.NO.1/2024 IN WP(C) NO. 11901 OF 2024(K)
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
MR.SANIL S.K, MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KSFE LTD. HEAD OFFICE,
BHADRATHA, THRISSUR - 680020
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
C.R.SHAJI, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUVATHU NAGAR POST, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688559
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to intiate appropriate
proceedings against the respondent by directing the Registrar of this
Court to prefer a complaint against the respondent before the
jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences which he has committed before
this Hon'ble Court.
This Application again coming on for orders upon perusing the
application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's
judgment dated 11-04-2024 and this court's order in IA dated 16-10-2024
and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN, STANDING COUNSEL
for the petitioner in IA/ respondent in WP(C) and of SRI.BABU CHERUKARA,
Advocate for the respondent in IA/petitioner WP(C), the court passed the
following:
WP(C) No.11901/2024 2/5
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
===========================
I.A.No.1/2024 in WP(C)No.11901 of 2024
=========================================
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2024
O R D E R
This application has been filed by the KSFE,
asserting that the writ petitioner has produced
Ext.P19, which is a forged document; and is thus
amenable to action under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The reply of the writ petitioner is that
Ext.P19 is not forged; but he conceded that he had
taken the original of the document - which is in
Malayalam and then substituted its contents with
English translation retaining that part until his
address is shown therein.
3. We have examined Ext.P19 and have compared it
with the original of the said document in Malayalam
- which has been produced by the learned counsel for
the writ petitioner along with his memo dated
28.10.2024. Pertinently, Ext.P19 is not shown to be
signed by the Managing Director of the KSFE.
I.A.No.1/2024 in WP(C)No.11901 of 2024
4. The initial portion of Ext.P19, upto that
part where the address of the Writ Petitioner is
shown, certainly is taken from the original order;
and it appears to be then superimposed by a text,
which is stated to have been translated with the
help of an online Translator.
5. The question before this Court is whether
this amounts to an action falling within the ambit
of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. I am of the view that it will not be
because, had the document been shown to be signed by
the Managing Director after translation, then it
would be a case of forgery; but otherwise, it is an
instance where the writ petitioner has exceeded his
liberty, of using the original document without
explaining in the Memorandum as to what he has done.
7. I surely find favour with the objection
expressed before me by Sri.Salil Narayanan - learned
counsel for the KSFE, because at one glance, Ext.P19
would appear to be a document issued by the KSFE;
I.A.No.1/2024 in WP(C)No.11901 of 2024
and coupled with the factum of it containing certain
phrases and use of language, which even this Court
found to be contrary to reason, the petitioner
certainly requires to be warned and to be told not
to indulge in such activities in future.
With the afore warning against the Writ
Petitioner being recorded, this I.A is closed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
stu/SAS JUDGE
13-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11901/2024
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION BEING AN ORDER DATED
22-02-2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
13-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
