Petitioner in C.M.P.No.792/14 in C.C.No.461/13 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Mavelikkara is the revision petitioner herein.
2. On the basis of a complaint given by the de facto complainant, a crime was registered as Crime No.92/2013 of Kurathikadu Police Station on the basis of a letter received by him said to have been sent by the revision petitioner containing some baseless and malicious allegations from some unknown address with an intention to cause annoyance to the de facto complainant and thereby, alleging commission of the offence under Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Mavelikkara and that was taken on file as C.C.No.461/2013. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.778/2014 before this court to quash the proceedings raising the same contentions. But, this court disposed of that petition leaving open the right of the petitioner to file an application for discharge and if such an application is filed, directing the magistrate to dispose of the same in accordance with law in the absence of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, he filed C.M.P.No.792/2014 for discharge and that was dismissed by the learned magistrate by the impugned order which is under challenge by filing the above revision by the revision petitioner.
3. Heard the Counsel for the revision petitioner and respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the genuineness of the letter has been disputed by the revision petitioner and without getting any scientific evidence, only relying on the statement said to have been given by the sister of the revision petitioner and the de facto complainant that it was written by the revision petitioner and on that basis, the case has been registered and final report has been filed. Further, he had produced a certificate issued from the Embassy showing that the handwriting written in that certificate is that of the revision petitioner and submitted that if it is compared, it will be seen that there is no similarity between the same and on that basis, this court can dispose of the case pending before the court below.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a matter for evidence and the hand writing can be proved by method known to law and one such method is identifying the same with the person who are conversant with the handwriting of the person, that was the method adopted by the police in this case as the revision petitioner was not available at that time for comparing the signature and is there any defect in the investigation can be considered by the trial court and it is not at this stage to consider whether he is entitled for discharge on that ground alone.
6. It is an admitted fact that when the de facto complainant in this case received a courier from an unknown address containing a letter with false and malicious allegations, she had filed a complaint before the police and police registered a case as Crime No.92/2013 of Kurathikadu Police Station under Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act against the present revision petitioner on the allegation made by the de facto complainant that it was written and sent by the revision petitioner. It is also in a way admitted in the revision petition itself that police had questioned the sister of the revision petitioner and she identified the handwriting is that of his brother who is working abroad and it was on the basis of the evidence collected that the Final Report was filed against the revision petitioner. It is true that now the revision petitioner had filed Crl.M.A.No.6417/2014 with certificate given by Embassy of India showing that the writing in the certificate is that of the revision petitioner and the Counsel wanted the same to be compared with the letter said to have been sent by him which is the document before the court below. This court feels that it is not for the High Court exercising the power under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure to compare the handwriting under Section 73 of Evidence Act to form an opinion as to whether it was written by the revision petitioner or not. Further, when a subsequent writing was made, the possibility of revision petitioner making a different handwriting also cannot be ruled out. So, at this stage merely because some officer of Embassy had attested a handwriting shown in the certificate as that of the revision petitioner is not a ground at this stage to come to a conclusion as to whether the handwriting in the disputed letter was that of the revision petitioner or not as it is a matter to be proved by adducing proper evidence before the court below.
7. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the method by which handwriting can be proved is not always necessary to be proved by examining the same by a handwriting expert and if a person who is conversant with the handwriting identifies the same as the person who had written it, then, that also can be considered by the court whether that is sufficient to convict the revision petitioner or not and it is a matter for the court to consider at a later stage. It is settled law that at the time when the court is hearing the question of discharge, court need not go into the question as to whether the evidence collected is sufficient for conviction but, court need only consider the evidence collected is sufficient to proceed against the accused by framing charge. Further, unless the court is satisfied that the allegations are groundless, court need not invoke the power under Sections 227 or 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge the accused. Further, in the decision reported in Shoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors Vs. State of U.P. and Anr [AIR 2013 SC 52], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, while considering the application for discharge, the magistrate has on the basis of the material on record only to see whether there is ground to presume that the accused has committed the offence and even strong suspicion about existence of facts constituted the offence will be sufficient to refuse discharge. So, in this case, on the basis of the materials collected at least there is a suspicion that it would have been committed by the revision petitioner and that will be sufficient for the purpose of framing charge. Whether that is sufficient for entering conviction is a matter for the court below to consider on the basis of evidence. So, under the circumstances, court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the application for discharge and no illegality has been committed by the court below in this regard. So, the revision lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the revision is dismissed. It is made clear that whatever observation made by this court in this order is not any final opinion on fact, but, it has been made only for the purpose of considering the revision alone and the court below is directed to consider the question untrammeled by the observation made in this revision on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence before that court in accordance with law. Crl.M.A.No.6417/2014 is also dismissed as it cannot be accepted and compared by this court at this stage. He can apply for return of this document and then, produce the same before the court below if he wants to rely on the same as piece of evidence to support his case and if such a document is produced, it is for the court below to consider and take independent decision on merit. Interim order granted as per order in Crl.M.A.No.3567/14 is vacated and the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge