Finding that as per the Magistrate, the revision petitioner failed to produce any reliable material to show that her signatures were forged in the vakalath and the claim petition, and the revision petitioner has failed to utilize enough opportunity given to her to lead evidence supporting her allegations, the Kerala High Court held that unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu observed that “The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal”.

Referring to the decision in case of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123], the Bench reiterated that unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

Advocate Manoj. T. N. appeared for the petitioner, whereas Advocate Biju Balakrishnan appeared for the respondents.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner’s husband and the other two respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy with a common intention to take illegal possession of 2 cents of property that belongs to the petitioner. They filled a vakalath in the name of the petitioner without her consent by forging her signature before the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram. As a result, she lost 2 cents of land. The Petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. But the same was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr. P. C.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that under Section 203 CrPC, a Magistrate may summarily dismiss a complaint if, after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the investigation under Section 202, he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.

The Bench further noted that the words “sufficient ground” used in Section 203 CrPC means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused from the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not that there is sufficient ground for conviction.

“The sufficient ground contemplated in the section relates to the facts which the complainant placed before the Court and such facts showing a prima facie case against the accused. The Magistrate can take into consider inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations”, added the Bench.

The Bench went on to observe that the sworn statement of the revision petitioner was recorded on July 27, 2013, and thereafter, the Magistrate granted not less than five postings to lead further evidence, but the revision petitioner failed to take any steps to establish that her signatures were forged in the vakalath and claim petition.

Hence the High Court dismissed the revision petition finding that there is nothing to show that the decision impugned is perverse or untenable in law.

Cause Title: Lalitha v. Krishna Pillai and Ors.

Click here to read/download the order


Kerala High CourtJustice K. BabuSection 397 CrPCSection 401 CrPC

Pankaj Bajpai