The petitioners (accused) in CMP.No.477(A)/2014 in C.C.No.180/2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam are the revision petitioners herein. The revision petitioners were charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam east police station alleging offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was originally originated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant, who is the third respondent herein, against the two accused persons alleging commission of the above said offence. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on receipt of the complaint, Crime No.1250/2012 of Kottayam west police station was registered. Since the incident occurred within the jurisdiction of Kottayam east police station, the records were sent to that police station where it was re-registered as Crime No.1021/2012 and after investigation, the final report was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.180/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kottayam. On getting summons, the present revision petitioners filed Crl.M.C.No.727/2014 and this Court disposed of that petition leaving open the right of the petitioners to file application for discharge. Accordingly, the petitioners filed C.M.P.No.477/2014 for discharge and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed that application. Dissatisfied with the same, the present revision has been filed. 2. As per the directions of this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor ascertained and submitted that hand writing expert's report has been obtained and that will be produced before court. Considering the scope of enquiry in this revision, this Court felt that the revision can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the revision petitioners and the Public Prosecutor dispensing with notice to the third respondent.
3. The counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the case of the complainant was that it was a case of forgery. But without obtaining any expert opinion, the final report has been filed by the investigating officer. Further the present petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the property and they have applied for change of commissioner's name to the name of the present owner and they have not forged any documents. They only executed a indemnity bond. So none of the offences are attracted against them.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a matter for evidence and now expert opinion has been obtained and that will be produced before court.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of a private complaint filed by the third respondent against the accused persons, which was forwarded to the police, originally Crime No.1250/2012 of Kottayam east police station was registered and during investigation, it was revealed that since the entire incident happened within the jurisdiction of Kottayam east police station, the case was transferred to that police station where it was reregistered as Crime No.1021/2012. It is also an admitted fact that after conducting investigation, final report was filed alleging offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and it was taken on file as C.C.No.180/2013. The case of the complainant was that the signature of his father was forged for the purpose of transferring the electric connection.
6. It is true that at the time when final report was filed, expert opinion was not obtained. But it is seen that steps have been taken by the investigating officer for the purpose of sending the impugned document for expert opinion. But before getting that report, the final report was filed. Later it appears that a report has been sent to that court. Whether the document produced is an indemnity bond or consent letter as claimed by the defacto complainant, whether the signature in the document is a forged one or not? etc are matters for evidence. On the basis of the allegation and the statement given by the witnesses, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case made out for proceeding against the accused persons and the allegations cannot be said to be groundless so as to discharge the revision petitioners under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So if the matter has to be decided on the basis of evidence, then it cannot be said that the order passed by the court below dismissing the application for discharge is illegal. Whether the evidence collected by the investigating officer is sufficient for conviction etc is a matter to be considered by the court while appreciating the evidence and that need not be considered at the time when considering the application for discharge. So the order dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioners before the court below is perfectly illegal and that does not call for any interference. So, the revision lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made in this order will not affect the right of the court below to appreciate the evidence and pass appropriate orders and come to an independent conclusion regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused persons at the time of trial.
Communicate this order to the court below at the earliest.
cl /true copy/ Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
P.S to Judge