Inability of an investigating officer to get necessary documents in a forgery case cannot be a ground for a Judicial Magistrate to close the case, the Madras High Court observed here today.
Justice S Nagamuthu of Madurai bench allowed the petition filed by G Rajkumar, Secretary, Devanga Arts College, Aruppukottai, seeking a re-investigation in the complaint filed by his predecessor K S S Soundaiya alleging that a letter was sent to Directorate of Collegiate Education (DCE) by forging his signature.
Allowing a petition against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, the High court said the Judicial Magistrate ought not have accepted the final report of the police on the ground that the complainant had expressed no objection.
Also Read
The court directed the police to reopen the case and complete probe expeditiously and file a final report in six months.
The Magistrate should have applied his "judicial mind into the report and all the documents filed there and then come to a conclusion as to whether to proceed further by taking cognizance of the offences or to accept the report."
The former secretary of the college K S S Soundaiya had filed a petition on February 6, 2010, under various sections of IPC including 465 (forgery), 417 (cheating) and 120 (conspiracy) against some persons for sending a letter to DCE by forging his signature.
The letter had stated that the college had decided to withdraw the minority status.
Soundaya in his complaint had stated that it was done with the dishonest intention to cause injury to the reputation of the college and its functioning.
The police inspector who inquired in the complaint said he could not get the forged letter and filed a report to the magistrate recommending to drop the matter.
Justice Nagamuthu said the offence was serious and inspector had the power to seize the documents from the office of the DCE. The Judge also described the act of the DCE as irresponsible and wondered why it did not furnish the documents.
The action of the inspector in the forgery case was illegal, the Judge said.
The Judge said Soundaiya had curiously expressed no objection for the final report of the police.
Had the Judicial Magistrate applied his mind, he would not have been satisfied with the final report, because further action was dropped due to inability of the inspector to collect vital documents in the case.
"A Judge should not speak, but his order should speak. The Magistrate's order in this case is a classic example of non-speaking order and it was illegal," the judge said.
