The prayer of the petitioner herein is to set aside the order dated 14.03.2007 made in Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2006 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, by confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in Crl.M.P.No.632 of 2005 in C.C.No.179 of 2002 on his file and to allow Crl.M.P.No. 632 of 2005.
2. It is alleged by the petitioner that he filed a private complaint against the respondents herein for offences under Sec. 468, 467 and 471 IPC. The Learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as CC.No.179 of 2002. The allegation in the complaint is that on 01.06.2001, the respondents herein forcibly took the petitioner herein and obtained his signatures on various documents and also thumb impression in the Registrar Office at Kankeyam, that with the help of forged power of attorney obtained loan from Canara Bank and that the petitioner filed Criminal M.P.No.632 of 2005 to call for the documents stated in the above petition from the Sub-Rregistrar office and Canara Bank, Kankeyam and sent the same for expert's opinion regarding authenticity of signatures in the document and also thumb impression and to examine the expert, pertaining to the alleged forged document. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the signature found in the receipt issued by the Sub-Registrar office, Kankeyam for registering the power of attorney dated 26.02.2001 is not signed by the petitioner and it is a forged one and that the left thumb impression found in the Thumb Impression Register was obtained from the petitioner by threat and coercion but the signature found in the thumb impression is not that of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the reasons given by the courts below for dismissing the Cr.M.P.No.632 of 2005 are untenable and unjust and contrary to Law and the courts below erred in law in coming to the conclusion that already the alleged forged documents were compared with the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner. The petitioner's further submission is that the courts below ought to have rejected the expert opinion since the opinion given by the expert was on the basis of xerox copies of alleged documents and not by comparison of the alleged documents with the original. It is further stated by the petitioner that the expert opinion was given only on request by Police and not by the petitioner and hence the conclusion of the courts below that no appeal, with respect to the experts opinion, was filed is erroneous. The petitioner further submits that he had filed a Civil Suit seeking to prove his title over the property and to set aside the General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by the petitioner on 26.02.2006, in O.S.No.218 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kankeyam. The findings of the Courts below that the Civil Court dealt with the same subject matter is erroneous. It is stated by the petitioner that he is seeking to get the expert opinion only to prove forgery committed by the respondents herein and the expert opinion will definitely be of help for deciding the case. The petitioner therefore submits that this court may set aside the orders of the Court below and allow Criminal M.P.No.632 of 2005.
3. I have heard the respective contentions put forth by the learned counsels for both sides and averments made in the petition. It is seen from the order of the Trial Court that the Trial in this case has commenced, PWs 1,2 & 3 on the side of the complainant has been examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 have also been marked on the complainants side. And the evidence on the complainants side has been closed and the case stands posted for defence evidence, and at this stage, the complainant has filed this criminal M.P.No.632 of 2005 for sending the documents to an expert. The Trial Court has further found that on a petition earlier filed under
section 153 (3) Cr.P.C., the alleged documents have been sent for comparison to the expert for his opinion and a report has been received therefor in the Trial Court and the petitioner herein failed to take any further action on that report. That the petitioner herein has just stated that his signature were obtained in the Sub-Registrars office were not his signatures. The Trial Court therefore found that the petitioner has not specifically denied the signatures found in the documents of the Sub Registrar's Office, that he has just stated that those signatures were obtained by threat and coercion and that as already a report of the fingerprint expert has been produced in this case, the petitioner's prayer in the petition now filed is not sustainable. The trial court therefore dismissed the petition.
4. As against this decision of the Trial Court, the petitioner herein preferred a Criminal Revision Petition in Criminal R.C.No.25 of 2006 before the Fast Track Court No.III, Darapuram. The Fast Track Court held that even though, the petitioner herein, had stated that his signatures on the records of the Sub-Registrars office were obtained by threat and his thumb impression in the records were obtained by forcibly taking him and by threat, a civil case has been filed with respect to the General Power of Attorney and in that the petitioner herein has raised the very same prayer as now raised herein. The Fast Track Court further held that the petitioner has not produced by evidence to prove that he was forcibly taken and the signatures were obtained under threat even though he has not specifically denied his signatures. The petitioner herein has filed another petition to implead one Balakrishnan also as an accused and that petition also has been dismissed. In an earlier complaint (Crime No.251 of 2001) which was taken on file as C.C.No.165 of 2001, filed by the petitioner herein, that the accused forcibly took him and obtained his signature and thumb impression, the respondents have been acquitted. The Fast Track Court has further held that the expert opinion already obtained is to the effect that the alleged forged signatures and the admitted signatures are one and the same. The Fast Track Court further held that the petitioner is in the habit of filing petition after petition just to drag on the case, especially when the case is in part heard stage. The Fast Tract Court therefore dismissed the Revision and confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that when an earlier Criminal Revision filed was dismissed by the Sessions Court, the person aggrieved cannot knock the doors of the High Court by way of a petition under Sec.
482 Cr.P.C., and hence the present petition filed by the petitioner herein is not sustainable. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Kailash Verma ..Vs.. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and another ((2005) 2 Supreme Court cases 571) wherein the Supreme Court held that "In view of the Prohibition under
Sections 397(3) and
482 second revision before High Court after the dismissal of first one by Sessions Court Bar in respect of Remedy under Sec.
482 availability of - Grounds for - If on facts, S.
482 rightly invoked held, in view of the prohibition under S.397(3), the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to a second revision, but High Court can entertain a petition under Sec.
482 when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the court or when mandatory provisions of law are not complied with and when the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the Revisional Court."
6. In the case on hand, the courts below have correctly considered the materials available and I see there is no miscarriage of Justice or abuse of process of Court and as such exercise of powers under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C., by this Court is not warranted. The Petition now filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., amounts only to a Second Revision which cannot be entertained.
7. With the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.
mra To
1. Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Dharapuram.
2. Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.
3. Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras