“Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal of Complaint - ‘No Sufficient Ground for Proceeding’ in Forgery Case”

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala upheld the Magistrate’s decision to dismiss a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Lalitha against Krishna Pillai and Mini S.K. The Honourable Mr. Justice K. Babu emphasized that there was “no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents.”

Lalitha had filed a revision petition alleging offenses under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. She claimed that her signature was forged in legal documents, leading to the loss of her property. However, the High Court noted her “failure to produce any reliable material to substantiate her allegations,” leading to the dismissal of her revision petition.

The Court elaborated on the conditions under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Justice K. Babu stated that the Magistrate is to consider “whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused.”

The High Court also raised questions about Lalitha’s credibility, pointing out the significant time lapse between her claimed discovery of the forgery and the filing of her complaint. The Court observed that this “raises genuine doubts in the intention of the complainant in filing the present complaint.”

In the judgment, the High Court clarified the scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating that it “is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction.” The Court found no reason to interfere with the Magistrate’s well-reasoned decision, thereby dismissing the revision petition.

The case referred to in the judgment was Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123], which also dealt with the scope of revisional jurisdiction.

Date of Decision:  23 August 2023

LALITHA vs KRISHNA PILLAI