Kerala High Court Orders Trial Court To Procure Civil Court Document And Send It For Forensic Analysis

A single-judge bench of Justice G. Girish of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam heard petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur’s order dated 17.08.2019 which refused to call for documents from the Sub Court, Thalassery for expert examination in connection with C.C. No.638/2005. The petitions were filed by the de facto complainant and by the State seeking directions to obtain the impugned sale agreement and subject it to forensic analysis in a prosecution for alleged forgery, cheating and related offences.

The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s common order and directed the Magistrate to call for the documents from the Sub Court, Thalassery and to send the same for expert analysis. The Court observed that the Trial Court possessed statutory power to obtain and refer documentary evidence for expert opinion and that procedural gaps in the investigation could not justify denial of the request. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The Trial Court is empowered to call for the said document and to send it for expert analysis notwithstanding the fact that a final report and a supplementary final report were filed by the investigating agency without opting for the above course of procedure. The aforesaid powers of the Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), has to be exercised by the Trial Court in an appropriate case where the disputed document is required to be subjected to expert analysis to meet the ends of justice.” The judge further noted repeated instances of “slipshod and perfunctory investigation” and held that the reasons given by the Magistrate — uncertainty about which court retained the record, absence of a prior application by the Investigating Officer and alleged earlier inaction by the de facto complainant — “cannot be a ground to disallow the prayer” to procure and analyse the document.

Background The dispute arose after the de facto complainant, P. Sreedharan, alleged that he had entrusted signed blank stamp papers to his relatives (accused Nos.1 and 2) for availing a loan, and that those papers were misused to fabricate a sale agreement of his landed property at Kannur. The accused allegedly instituted suits in the civil forum on the basis of the forged document and obtained interim relief; civil proceedings were later withdrawn or proceeded to other stages. The complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. Investigation and prosecution encountered procedural disputes: the Investigating Officer sought permission for further probe and for obtaining specimen handwriting and the civil record for forensic comparison; at various stages the Magistrate dismissed applications and this Court and the Supreme Court dealt with interlocutory challenges (including a reference to Amrut Bhai Shambhu Bhai Patel v. Suman Bhai Kanti Bhai Patel [AIR 2017 SC 774] on the scope of further investigation). The accused had earlier resisted producing specimen writings, citing a pending Special Leave Petition which the Supreme Court later dismissed. The Magistrate declined to call for the civil record on grounds including uncertainty as to which court retained the document and alleged previous inaction; the High Court found those reasons unsustainable, directed the Magistrate to obtain the documents from the Sub Court, Thalassery and to forward them for forensic analysis, and allowed the petitions.

The petitions were allowed; the impugned common order dated 17.08.2019 in C.M.P. Nos.5222/2019 and 5389/2019 in C.C. No.638/2005 was set aside and the Magistrate was directed to pass necessary orders to call for the documents and to send them for expert analysis.

Case Details: Case No.: Crl.M.C No.659 of 2020 & Crl.M.C No.2398 of 2022 Case Title: P. Sreedharan v. Ayilliath Yadhunandhan Nambiar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri R. Anil; Shri M. Sunilkumar; Shri Sujesh Menon V.B.; Sri T. Anil Kumar; Shri Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil); Shri Mahesh Bhanu S.; Smt. S. Lakshmi Sankar; Sri K. Sankaranarayanan. For the Respondent(s): Sri Sajith Kumar V.; Shri Vivek A.V.; Shri Godwin Joseph; Sri Renjit George (Sr. Public Prosecutor); Shri Sudheer G. (Public Prosecutor).