SRI T.R.RAJENDRA KUMAR & ANR vs SMT SUMITHRA BAI & ANR

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

The respondent No.1 filed a private complaint in PCR No.22/2013 making allegations against the accused/petitioner for the offence under

Section 407, 420, 463, 464, 465, 469 and 470 of I.P.C. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have colluded with each other and they,

in order to cheat the complainant, have forged certain documents in respect of the property pertaining to the complainant and they have also taken

some signatures and thumb impression of the complainant for the purpose of creating a sale deed in respect of the property of the complainant, in

favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., petitioners. Said complaint was referred to the police for investigation and the police have submitted B-

Summary report. The learned Magistrate on 28.8.2015 has passed separate orders holding that he has perused the B-Summary report filed by the

police and the complainant has raised objections to accept the same and it is opined by the learned Magistrate that, there are some materials to

proceed further in the case against the accused. Therefore, recording such objections coupled with the allegations made in the complaint, the

learned Magistrate has rejected B- report. Thereafter taking cognizance on the basis of the original complaint as well as the protest petition filed by

the complainant and recorded his sworn statement and issued process against the accused. The learned Magistrate having gone through the

complaint averments in detail at paragraph 3 and also B-report submitted by the police, as well as the sworn statement of the complainant and

thereafter recording his opinion held that that it is a fit case to issue process against the accused.

Though the learned counsel tried to convince this Court submitting that, in respect of the allegations made, in order to attract the penal

provisions, no documents have been produced by the complainant, particularly the alleged forged documents or any document which show the

forgery of the documents. It is too premature stage to draw an inference at this stage that merely because the complainant has not produced certain

documents, the order of the Magistrate is illegal. What is to be looked into by the Court is that whether complaint averments have been considered

by the learned Magistrate, as also the sworn statement and recorded his opinion to issue of process with regard to his satisfaction. May be the

opinion or the satisfaction of the Magistrate may be erroneous. Even such erroneous opinion or satisfaction cannot be interfered with at this stage

when the learned Magistrate has specifically applied his mind to the facts of the case, complaint and the sworn statement and has recorded his

finding that the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence for the purpose of issue of process.

In the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is also made

clear that at the time of recording of the evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners would get sufficient opportunity to demolish the

case of the complainant, if any document is produced or oral evidence is adduced. With these observations, I am of the opinion that it is not the

appropriate stage to quash the proceedings. The petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

If any exemption application is filed by the accused before the trial Court for exemption of the accused, the same shall be considered in

accordance with law.

In view of the above order, IA-I/2017 does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly dismissed.