In a High Court of Judicature during Madras

Dated 08.07.2013

Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH
Criminal Original Petition No.14889 of 2013

Karthick ..Petitioner

..vs..

1. The Commissioner of Police,Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station,Chennai-600 028. ..Respondents

Criminal Original Petition filed underneath territory 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to approach a 2nd respondent to register an FIR on a petitioner’s censure antiquated 04.02.2013, examine a same and record a final news in suitability with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Saravanavel
For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, A.P.P.,

ORDER

The benefaction petition has been filed seeking for a instruction to a 2nd respondent to register a box on a petitioner’s censure antiquated 04.02.2013, examine a same and record a final news in suitability with law.

2. Case of a petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

Petitioner is a father of one Narayanee @ Krithika. A box in HMOP No.383 of 2007 is tentative between a postulant and his mom before a Family Court during Chennai. In a pronounced petition, detached from other diverse petitions, I.A.Nos.486, 1649 and 2429 of 2010 and 2035 of 2011are pending; of which, I.A.Nos.486 and 1649 of 2010 have been filed by a mom on seductiveness of a teenager child Keerthana to raise a upkeep and to compensate a educational losses respectively. I.A.No.2429 of 2010 has been filed by a mom to strike off a counterclaim and I.A.No.2035 of 2011 has been filed by a postulant to scold a sequence of maintenance. During a pronounced enquiry in a pronounced I.As., on 09.04.2004, 23 papers were filed by a mom Krithika by her energy representative Viswanathan and a same were noted as Exs.P-1 to P-23. Among which, Ex.P-16 is a document, that is claimed by a pronounced Krithika to be a request released by a Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.

3. It is a serve box of a postulant that a pronounced request is a self-existent and a fake document. The postulant was sensitive by a Ministry of External Affairs by a minute antiquated 10.06.2012 that it seems to be a fabricated/forged document. The postulant done a censure antiquated 04.02.2013 to a 1st respondent seeking to trigger suitable rapist record for forgery and perjury opposite Krithika and her energy of profession Viswanathan for carrying built a request and producing a same before a Family Court as evidence, and a same was forwarded to a 2nd respondent for holding action; though a 2nd respondent did not take any action. Hence, a benefaction petition has been filed to register a box on his complaint.

4. Heard a schooled warn for a postulant as good as a schooled Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. It is a box of a postulant that in a box tentative between him and his mom in HMOPNo.383 of 2007 before a Family Court, Chennai, his mom noted a request supposed to be released by a Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and a same was noted as Ex.P-16. It is a box of a postulant that a pronounced request is a fake one and, hence, a postulant had sent an focus on 16.04.2012 to a Ministry of External Affairs underneath RTI Act to verify, possibly Ex.P-16 is a genuine request or or not? But a Regional Passport Officer sent a respond antiquated 10.06.2012 that a request seems to be a fabricated/forged document. That apart, a postulant had perceived a respond antiquated 05.07.2012 from a Regional Passport Officer in response to a RTI Application antiquated 26.04.2012. The questions lifted by a postulant in his minute antiquated 26.04.2012 with courtesy to Ex.P-13 and a answers given by a Regional Passport Officer by his minute antiquated 10.06.2012 are as follows:

Sl.No.

Questions lifted by a postulant Reply given by a Department

1. Whether this request is released by we ?

No.

2. If it is released by you, on what basement we have released (as my pass comes underneath informal pass bureau during Chennai) and also on what basement we have mentioned several essence of a document?

Not released by this office.

3. Whether we have released any other document(s) relating to me to Narayanee ?

No. No record is available

6. After removing these answers from a Regional Passport Officer, a postulant has lodged a censure with a 1st respondent military to trigger movement opposite his mom and energy representative for their impasse in producing a fake request before a court, that is punishable underneath a supplies of Indian Penal Code. The pronounced censure that was given to a 1st respondent was forwarded to a 2nd respondent and a 2nd respondent, after recording a matter of energy agent, has lifted a doubt with courtesy to a office of military questioning a offence. Therefore, they have not taken any serve movement in a matter. On 06.05.2013, a postulant sent an focus underneath a RTI Act to know about a standing of a complaint. But a Inspector of Police, a 2nd respondent sent a respond antiquated 17.05.2013 to a queries lifted by a petitioner. The questions lifted by a postulant and a answers given by a 2nd respondent are as follows:

Sl.No.

Questions lifted by a postulant Reply given by a 2nd respondent

1. Whether FIR has been filed on a pronounced indicted – if it is so, in what sections and a benefaction theatre of a record on a FIR.

No box purebred opposite a petition antiquated 04.02.2013 elite by a petitoner Thiru S.Karthick.

2. If a FIR is not filed a specific reason for a same?

The forgery papers pronounced in a censure was filed by a opposite postulant in a family justice is lies within a devalue of a High Court a Court usually confirm required movement on this if it is hold fit.

3. Copies of a petition filed by me antiquated 04.02.2013 ?

Enclosed.

4. Copy of a matter if perceived from a indicted chairman ?

Enclosed.

By giving a above accessible answers, a 2nd respondent voiced doubts about a office of a military to examine a corruption given already a request was noted in a Court. Aggrieved over a same, a benefaction petition has been filed.

7. It is a categorical acquiescence of a schooled warn for a postulant that a 2nd respondent is carrying office to perform a censure and examine a same given a request was combined outward a justice and thereafter, filed and noted in a justice proceedings.

8. Per contra, it is a acquiescence of a schooled Additional Public Prosecutor that underneath territory 195(1)(b((ii) Cr.P.C. will work as a bar for a military to perform a censure given a request was already noted in a justice proceedings. The usually choice accessible to a postulant is to plead territory 340 of Cr.P.C.before a endangered court.

9. In perspective of a arguments modernized by both sides, a core doubt that has to be deliberate is, possibly a military authorities can register a box for formulating a fake document, that was allegedly noted in a march of justification before a Court ?

10. The visualisation relied on by a schooled warn for a postulant reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 (Iqbal Singh Marwah and another .vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another) is giving a wise answer for this issue. The significant aspects of a cited box would uncover that in a probate proceedings, a petition was contested by a respondents on a belligerent that a Will was forged. Hence, a respondents changed an focus before a justice endangered requesting a justice to record a rapist censure opposite a appellants. A respond to a pronounced focus was filed on 27.07.1994; though a pronounced focus was not likely of. Hence, a respondents filed a rapist censure before a justice of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for charge underneath sections 192,193, 463, 464, 465, 467, 469, 471, 499 and 500 IPC on a appellants and their mom on a belligerent that a Will constructed by a appellants was a fake and fictitious document. The schooled Metropolitan Magistrate hold that a doubt possibly a Will was a genuine request or a fake one, was an emanate before a District Judge in a probate record where a Will had been filed, Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Cr.P.C. work as a bar for holding knowledge of a offences underneath sections 192, 193, 463, 464, 471, 475 and476 IPC. The censure was accordingly discharged by sequence antiquated 02.05.1998. Subsequently, a respondents in that box filed a rapist rider opposite a sequence of schooled Metropolitan Magistrate before a Sessions Court, who relying on a box of Sachida Nand Singh .vs. State of Bihar reported in (1998) 2 SCC 493, hold that a bar contained in territory 195(1)(b)(ii) would not request where forgery of a request was committed even before a prolongation of a pronounced request in a Court. The rider petition was accordingly authorised and a matter was remanded to a Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for move in suitability with law. The appellants challenged a sequence upheld by a schooled Sessions Judge by filing a petition underneath territory 482 Cr.P.C. before a Delhi High Court, though a same was dismissed. Aggrieved over a same, a appellants elite S.L.P. before a Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been celebrated as under:

“25. An lengthened interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby a bar combined by a pronounced sustenance would also work where after elect of an act of forgery a request is subsequently constructed in court, is able of good misuse. As forked out in Sachida Nand Singh after scheming a fake request or committing an act of forgery, a chairman might conduct to get a move instituted in any civil, rapist or income court, possibly by himself or by someone set adult by him and simply record a request in a pronounced proceeding. He would so be stable from charge possibly during a instance of a private celebration or a military until a court, where a request has been filed, itself chooses to record a complaint. The lawsuit might be a enlarged one due to that a tangible hearing of such a chairman might be behind indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be frequency unpropitious to a seductiveness of a multitude during large.

26. Judicial notice can be taken of a fact that a courts are routinely demure to approach filing of a rapist censure and such a march is frequency adopted. It will not be satisfactory and scold to give an interpretation that leads to a conditions where a chairman purported to have committed an corruption of a form enumerated in proviso (b)(ii) is possibly not placed for hearing on comment of non-filing of a censure or if a censure is filed, a same does not come to a judicious end. Judging from such an angle will be in accord with a element that an infeasible or reckless outcome should be avoided. In Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion (3rd Edn.), para 313, a element has been settled in a following manner:

“The justice seeks to equivocate a construction of an dramatization that produces an infeasible or reckless result, given this is doubtful to haver been dictated by Parliament. Sometimes, however, there are major reasons for requesting such a construction, for example, where it appears that Parliament unequivocally dictated it or a verbatim definition is too strong”.

………..

33. In perspective of a contention done above,we are of a opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been rightly motionless and a perspective taken therein is a scold view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be captivated usually when a offences enumerated in a pronounced sustenance have been committed with honour to a request after it has been constructed or given in justification in a move in any justice i.e. during a time when a request was in cutodia legis.”

11. Therefore, a reading of a pronounced paragraphs would clearly uncover that territory 195(1)(b)(ii)Cr.P.C.will not work as a bar to perform a censure by a military where forgery of a request was committed even before a pronounced request was constructed in a Court. In a present case, it is a specific claim of a complainant that a request was built outward a Court and noted during a march of proceedings. Therefore, in my deliberate opinion, a respondents are carrying office to perform a complaint.

In perspective of a above reasons, a second respondent is destined to cruise a censure and if a allegations contained in a censure discloses a elect of any cognizable offence, a second respondent is destined to register a case, examine a same and ensue serve in suitability with law. Criminal Original petition is likely of accordingly.

Index: Yes. 08.07.2013
Internet: Yes.

To
1. The Commissioner of Police,Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police,
E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station,Chennai-600 028.

3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.