2025:KER:21663 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 6227 OF 2022 CRIME NO.2624/2020 OF Aryanad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1188 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEDUMANGAD PETITIONER/ ACCUSED : DEEPU KRISHNAN AGED 36 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, GOKULAM, KAMUKARA, KOOTTAYANIMOODU, MITHANIKETHAN, VELLANAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542 BY ADV V.A.VINOD RESPONDENT/S TATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ARYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542 3 MAYADEVI AGED 45 YEARS D/O LALITHA, CHANDRASHEKARA VILASAM, CHANGA, VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:21663 Crl.M.C.No.6227 of 2022 :2: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.6227 of 2022 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025 O R D E R The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.2624/2020 of Aryanad Police Station, now pending as C.C.No.1188/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangadu. The offences alleged are under Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act. The petitioner seeks quashment of the crime, as also, all further proceedings therefrom. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the offence under Section 469, 2025:KER:21663 Crl.M.C.No.6227 of 2022 :3: to contend that the prosecution has no case that it was the petitioner, who forged the electronic record. All what is alleged against the petitioner is that, he has forwarded the video in social media. The same, by itself, will not attract the offence under Section 469, is the submission made by the learned counsel. It was then submitted that, going by the final report, there is no finding of fact that it was the petitioner, who had forwarded the objectionable video. Thirdly, learned counsel would submit that the objectionable video contains a political satire, which cannot attract the offence under Section 469, in the context of harming the reputation of the defacto complainant. On such premise, the petitioner seeks the crime and further proceedings to be quashed. 4. This application was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, going by the definition of forgery under Section 463, read with Section 464, mere 2025:KER:21663 Crl.M.C.No.6227 of 2022 :4: transmission of an electronic record can attract the offence of forgery, thus constituting the offence under Section 469 too. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds little merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, forgery is defined under Section 463, which employs the expression ‘making any false document or false electronic record’. Section 464 defines the making of a false document. Accordingly, a person is said to make a false document or a false electronic record, if he transmit any electronic record or any part of electronic record [See Cl.First (b) of S.464]. If that be so, even in the absence of a specific allegation that it is the petitioner who made the objectionable video, mere transmission, by itself, can attract the offence of forgery; and if it harms the reputation of the defacto 2025:KER:21663 Crl.M.C.No.6227 of 2022 :5: complainant - which, of course, is a matter of evidence - the offence under Section 469 is also attracted. 6. As regards the second contention that there is no finding in the final report that it was the petitioner, who transmitted the record, this Court cannot endorse the same. There is specific reference in the Final Report about the sim number, from which the objectionable video was forwarded, and the sim number is traced and found to be used by the petitioner. If that be so, the rest of the things are matter for evidence, as to whether the objectionable video was forwarded from the particular sim number and as to whether the particular sim number was used, at the relevant point of time, by the petitioner or not. As regards the last contention that the video contains only a political satire and not anything harmful to the defacto complainant, this Court will have to again observe that the same is also a matter for evidence for 2025:KER:21663 Crl.M.C.No.6227 of 2022 :6: the Trial Court to decide. The contents of the video will have to be analysed to arrive at a conclusion in this regard. In the circumstances, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is bereft of any substance and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file a discharge petition before the Trial Court. Having explored a larger remedy seeking quashment, which is not confined to the confines of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, this Court is not inclined to grant the liberty. Instead, the purpose will be served, if the learned Magistrate is directed to ensure the prima facie sustainability of the allegations levelled, so as to constitute the offences alleged, before framing the Court charge. Ordered accordingly. 8. Based on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner will stand dispensed with, except on crucial 2025:KER:21663 Crl.M.C.No.6227 of 2022 :7: dates, as also, during the course of trial. If the petitioner’s presence is required on a specific date, it will be open for the learned Magistrate to specify the same, insisting for the presence of the petitioner. This Criminal Miscellaneous case is disposed of as above. sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Raj. 2025:KER:21663 Crl.M.C.No.6227 of 2022 :8: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6227/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 2624/2020 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 1188/2021 PENDING ON THE FILES OF JFCM-I, NEDUMANGAD