WP(C) No. 3194 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

WP(C).No. 3194 of 2012 (Y) APPENDIXPETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :EXT P1 :COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.EXT P2 :COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED U/S 190 OF CRPC. EXT P3 :COPY OF THE UNDATED LETTER SENT BY THE 4th RESPONDENT. EXT P4 :COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2011. EXT P5 :COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.564/11 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD.RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL.// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.---------------------------------------W.P. (c) NO.3194 of 2012----------------------------------------Dated this the 18th day of June, 2012JUDGMENTPetitioner has filed a complaint before the JudicialFirst Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad, against two the relatives of her husband, the first and second respondent herein, alleging that forging a false document, a power of attorney, asif it had been executed by her at a place in Gulf country, the first respondent had conveyed an immovable property belonging to her fraudulently registering a sale deed in favour of the second respondent.

That complaint was referred to police for investigation and report by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'). The investigation led to filing of Ext.P5 report that no criminal offence is disclosed and the dispute canvassed is only of a civil nature. Petitioner submits that she did not get any notice of the report filed before the Court by the investigating officer, and further proceedings, if any, taken in W.P. (c) NO.3194 of 20122the matter by the Magistrate. Her enquiry has revealed that the power of attorney which was falsely forged into existence by the accused persons allegedly at Abudhabi was never signed and executed at the Consulate as shown in that document. A further investigation of the crime by a different agency or at least by a Superior police officer is warranted, isher case for invoking the inherent powers of this court for ordering the same, taking exception to Ext.P5 report filed in the case by the police.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The investigating agency has not looked into very many pertinent circumstances involved in the case and in fact they have filed Ext.P5 report only to assist the accused persons without even verifying whether the power of attorney used for the conveyance of the petitioner's property is forged or genuine, submits the counsel. Extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only sparingly when glaring injustice is pointed out. Petitioner has adequate and efficacious remedy of approaching the Magistrate with a protest complaint, or to seek for further investigation of the crime in case she has any objection over W.P. (c) NO.3194 of 20123the acceptance of the Ext.P5 report. In exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, this court it cannot be expected togo into disputed questions canvassed of as to whether the power of attorney was actually executed or not and, further, whether it had been forged by the accused persons as allegedby the petitioner. Leaving the petitioner to take appropriate steps as provided by law, if so advised, if at all she has no objection to the Ext.P5 report, the petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.DMR/-