John Panicker vs Noufal M Ikbal

C.S.Dias, J

The original petition is filed, to set aside Ext.P7 order in I.A No.2/2023 in O.S No.22/2022 passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Punalur. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the first respondent is the defendant in the suit.

The relevant background facts leading to Ext.P7 order are:

(i) The petitioner has filed the suit against the first respondent for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note.

(ii) During the pendency of the suit, the second respondent – the Station House Officer, Chadayamangalam Police –   has  registered Crime No.24/2022 against  the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, the second respondent filed Ext.P4 request before the court below, to hand over the promissory note to him, for sending the document for expert opinion.

(iii) Immediately on receipt of Ext.P4 notice, the court below issued Ext.P5 notice to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 application, inter alia, contending that he has no objection in sending the document for expert opinion, but the same shall not be done through the Police.

(iv) However, the court below, by the impugned Ext.P7 order, dismissed Ext.P6 application and has ordered the promissory note to be sent to the Forensic Science, Laboratory, for expert opinion through the second respondent.

(v) Ext.P7 order is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence the original petition.

Heard; Sri.R.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. In view of the relief that I propose to pass, I dispense with notice to the first respondent.

When the original petition was taken up for admission today, Sri.R.Krishnakumar submitted that, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the court below is directed to take a colour photostat copy of promissory note (i.e., Document No.1 dated 22.9.2020 purportedly executed by the first respondent produced along with the plaint) before the document is handed over to the Police for being send to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The petitioner wants the above safeguard because the first respondent is a Civil Police Officer and there is a likelihood of the second respondent conniving with the first respondent and tampering with the document.

In view of the limited relief that has been put-forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which I find to be reasonable and justifiable, I am of the firm view that original petition can be disposed of by incorporating the said safeguard in Ext.P7 order before the above promissory note is handed over to the second respondent.

In the result, in exercise of the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I dispose of the original petition as follows:

(i) Ext.P7 order is confirmed.

(ii) The Court of the Munsiff, Punalur, is directed to take a colour photostat copy of the promissory note dated 22.9.2020 (document No.1 produced along with Ext.P1 plaint) and get it certified by the Chief Ministerial Officer and keep the said copy in the suit records.

(iii) After the above exercise is carried out, the court below would be at liberty to hand over the promissory note to the second respondent for getting the expert opinion.

(iv) Immediately after the expert opinion is received, the second respondent is directed to return the original promissory note to the court below for the proper determination of the suit.

(v) The court below shall also get an undertaking from the second respondent that the promissory note shall not be tampered with and shall be returned as and when directed by the court below.