@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.@mdashI do not find any justification for invoking this Court''s revisional jurisdiction on the order passed by the Principal
Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode and confirmed by the District Judge, Kozhikode under which the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge have
concurrently concluded that there is no warrant for initiation of criminal proceedings against the second respondent in the C.R.P., a lady by name
P. M. Valsala.
2. The allegation or rather the accusation of the revision petitioner is that the second respondent, Smt. P. M. Valsala impersonated for the first
respondent in A. S. No. 165/97, one P.M. Kunhunni and filed a counter-statement before the Sub Court in I. A. No. 4308/01. Ext. P. 1
produced along with the revision petitioner is the certified photostat copy of the controversial counter statement. Pages 1 and 2 of Ext. P1 bears
the signatures of Smt. P. M. Valsala, who is none other than the mother of Sri P.M. Kunhunni, the 1st counter petitioner in I. A. No. 4308/01.
Smt. Valsala has subscribed her own signatures to the original of Ext. P.1. The stand of Sri P.M. Kunhunni before the Court below was that I. A.
No. 1093/02 filed by the present revision petitioner seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Smt. P. M. Valsala for having committed
offence coming u/s 205, I.P.C. was a misconceived application and that the petitioner''s intention is only to harass the respondent in one way or
other. It was pointed out that Smt. P.M. Valsala was the wife of Late K. M. Kunhunni, who is none other than the direct brother of the petitioner
K. M. Chitharanjan. Ultimately it was contended that the subscription of her signature by P.M. Valsala through the counter statement which was to
have been signed by her son P.M. Kunhunni was because of inadvertence and most importantly Sri P.M. Kunhunnni has expressly accepted the
statement filed by Smt. P.M. Valsala as his own and has also stated that everything stated in the statement signed by P.M. Valsala are true. The
learned subordinate Judge dismissed the application finding that the application is vexatious in nature. The lower appellate Court made a thorough
reappreciation of the case. Considering the maintainability of the appeal, the Court held that the appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed on that ground alone. Nevertheless, for the sake of completion, the Court considered the case on merits also. The lower appellate Court
noticed the stand of Sri. P. M. Kunhunni that the signing of the counter statement by his mother Smt. P.M. Valsala was only a mistake committed
by her and that the counter statement at any rate was statement of true facts. The Court further noticed that a direct complaint was submitted by
the revision petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for prosecuting Smt. P.M. Valsala, the alleged impersonator and the same was
dismissed and that even a criminal revision filed against the order of dismissal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The Court below ultimately
agreed with the learned subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.
3. Sri K. M. Chitharanjan, revision petitioner appeared before me in person and addressed me elaborately on the various grounds raised in the
revision petition. Though some of the submissions made by Mr. Chitharanjan at the bar were very persuasive and Mr. Chitharanjan, a law
graduate/lawyer claimed to be concerned about the necessity of curbing the evil trends in our adjudicatory system and the potential dangers in
allowing impersonators to go scot-free"", having regard to the limits of the jurisdiction which is being invoked, I find myself unable to interfere with
the impugned order. This Court in revisional jurisdictional u/s 115, C.P.C. usually looks for jurisdictional infirmities which taint the lower Court''s
orders. I do not find any jurisdictional infirmity about the orders passed by the learned sub Judge and the District Judge warranting interference by
this Court u/s 115, C.P.C. It will also be noticed that even though a reading of Section 115 of the C.P.C. indicates that the High Court can invoke
revisional jurisdiction to correct orders tainted with jurisdictional infirmities subject to the proviso to that section, the Supreme Court has in Brij
Gopal Mathur and Another Vs. Kishan Gopal Mathur and Others, held that exercise of the revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of the C.P.C. by the
High Court is discretionary and the Court can refuse to exercise the jurisdiction unless the order sought to be revised has occasioned a substantial
failure of justice. The Supreme Court also held that general inequities can be one of the considerations to govern the Court while deciding whether
revisional jurisdiction should be exercised. I have no difficulty to decide that on considerations of general equities also exercise of revisional
jurisdiction in this case will be totally unjustified. After, all, high sounding accusations of the petitioner notwithstanding, what became obvious before
the Courts below is that Smt. P. M. Valsala is the wife of late K. M. Kunhunni, the petitioner''s own brother, and that Sri. P.M. Kunhunni is
Valsala''s own son, though their relationships were not disclosed by the petitioner for reasons best known to him. It also became obvious that what
was actually done by Smt. Valsala was to put her own signature to a counter statement that was to have been signed by her son. The son did not
disown the mother. He did endorse the statement signed by his mother and the Courts below were convinced by the stand of the mother and the
son that the mother''s act was only a bona fide mistake and not an offence. The Courts below were convinced that designs of the petitioner in
seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents was not to uphold the honour and purity of the justice administration system but
instead to wreak vengeance on his sister-in-law and nephew who had successfully launched a civil litigation against him.
The revision fails and the same will stand dismissed in limine.
