Allegation Of Forgery Of Document To Be Considered By Court, Complaint On Administrative Side Not Legally Sustainable: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that when a statute confers specific power upon a judicial officer to tackle a particular situation on the judicial side, the administrative authority would be precluded from entertaining the complaint and taking a decision on the administrative side. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Shaji P. Chaly made the above observation in a case alleging commission of fraud and falsification of document by two advocates in a matter before the Munsiff's Court at Irinjalakuda, on the basis of which they had obtained a decree. 

"The issue with respect to the falsification or forgery of documents when raised before a court of law which dealt with the litigation is a subject matter to be considered by the said court itself, invoking the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C.," the court observed. 

The petitioner herein, who works as a Production Executive in the Malayalam and Tamil Film industries, alleged that the two lawyers had committed fraud and falsification of a compromise document and various other records forged by superimposing the former's signature, and secured a decree from the Munsiff’s Court, Irinjalakuda.

The petitioner subsequently filed a complaint before the District Judge, Thrissur narrating the incident. The District Judge however, rejected the complaint stating that the subject matter ought to be considered by the concerned Munsiff’s Court under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

It was further held by the District Judge that since the respondents were lawyers enrolled in the Bar Council of Kerala, it is the Bar Council that is vested with the powers to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The petitioner has thus challenged the legality and correctness of this decision of the District Judge in the writ petition. 

The Court in this case analyzed Section 340Cr.P.C. and observed, 

"...on an analysis of the said provision, it is clear that the Judicial Officer concerned is vested with ample power to conduct an enquiry and submit a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. That being the legal position, the complaint submitted by the petitioner on the administrative side of the District Judge is not legally sustainable. This I say because, when a specific power is conferred under a statute to tackle a particular situation on a judicial officer on the judicial side itself, that precludes the administrative authority to entertain a complaint and take a decision on the administrative side". 

The  ourt thus found that the petitioner had not made a case herein for the interference, as there was no illegality, arbitrariness or legal infirmities involved. 

However, on being informed by the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Rakesh Raj R that the application before the Munsiff's Court had only been for setting aside of the compromise decree. 

"In my considered view, if the application submitted to set aside the decree contains the relevant particulars with respect to the alleged forgery and falsification of the records, it is for the Munsiff to take appropriate action in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the liberty of the petitioner to adduce evidence in the pending proceedings are all eft open," the court added, while disposing the petition.

Advocates P.L. Sivaraman and Pranoy Kottaram appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Santhosh Kumar v. The High Court of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 238 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment