Prem Chander v. The State of Kerala and Ammu Ajit

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4484 OF 2021 ``` ``` [AGAINST CRIME NO.208/2021 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ``` ``` PALAKKAD DISTRICT.] ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:` ``` PREM CHANDER AGED 44 YEARS S/O.SUNDARAMOORTHY, SAKTHI VEEDU, KIZHAKETHARA, KUNISSRRY POST, ERUMAYUR-II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 681 NOW RESIDING AT NO.2 WEST CHANTRY, HARROW, LONDON, H A 36 N X, UNITED KINGDOM BY ADVS. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY K.VIJINA ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN 678 031 2AMMU AJIT W/O. SANTHOSH R.V, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT VRINDAVAN, DIWANS ROAD, KOCHI 682 016 AND PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 5054, PRESTIGE NEPTUNE'S COURTYARD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN 682 018 BY ADVS. FOR R2 BY G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) AKHIL SURESH(K/000576/2016) ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR(K/936/2014) ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` R1 BY ADV VIPIN NARAYAN -SR PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.12.2022, THE COURT ON 12.12.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 2 ## `O R D E R` ``` The petitioner is the 1[st] accused in Crime No.208/2021 ofTownSouth Police Station, ``` ``` Palakkad. The aforesaid crime was registered ``` ``` on the basis of Annexure-A complaint submitted ``` ``` by the 2[nd] respondent herein for the offences ``` ``` punishable under Sections 465,468,471,420 r/w. ``` ``` Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). ``` ``` 2.The allegation against the petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 are as follows: ``` ``` The petitioner is the former husband of the ``` ``` 2[nd]respondent/complainant. The 2[nd]accused ``` ``` is the maternal uncle of the petitioner ``` ``` herein and the 3[rd] accused is a lawyer, and ``` ``` according to the complainant, he is a ``` ``` close associate of accused Nos.1 and 2. The ``` ``` marriage between the petitioner and the 2[nd] ``` ``` respondent was solemnized on 22.08.2004 as per ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 3 `the provisions of the Special Marriage Act,` ``` 1984. After the marriage, in the month of August ``` ``` 2004 itself, the 2[nd] respondent, along with the ``` ``` petitioner, went to London and resided there as husband and wife. While so, on 25.05.2005, a Villa was purchased by the petitioner and the 2[nd] ``` ``` respondent in their joint name in London, which has title No.MX369992, West Chantry, Harrow, HA3 6NX, UK. ``` ``` 3.The aforesaid property was purchased by availing a credit facility from Halifax Bank, U.K., by creating a mortgage over the aforesaid ``` ``` property. The parties were residing in the aforesaid Villa. A male child was born to them on 13.03.2007. Later, there arose some ``` ``` matrimonial disputes between the parties and consequent to the same, the 2[nd] respondent returned to her native place. Meanwhile, as the petitioner was not servicing the loan availed for purchasing the Villa by remitting the ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 4 ``` instalments, it was being done by the father of ``` ``` the 2[nd]respondent. Later, the matrimonial disputes between the parties were settled before this Court in OP(FC)No.434/2014, and as per the terms of settlement arrived between the parties, a judgment was pronounced in the said original petition on 19.09.2014. As per the terms of the said settlement, which forms part of the judgment in the said Original Petition, the marriage between the parties was dissolved on mutual consent. As the substantial part of the repayment of the mortgage loan of Halifax Bank was made by the 2[nd] respondent and her father, the petitioner undertook that the balance mortgage amount would be paid by him. On the basis of the said understanding, the petitioner was permitted to reside in the said property. ``` ``` 4.Of late, on 10.12.2019, the 2[nd] respondent came across a letter dated 16.10.2019 sent by HM Land Registry of Durham Office, U.K., which was ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 5 ``` served upon the 2[nd] respondent in her ancestral ``` ``` property in Ernakulam. The said communication ``` ``` was a notice issued by the Land Registry seeking ``` ``` her objection/consent with respect to the ``` ``` transfer of the Villa in London in which she was a joint owner. As the said communication was served upon the 2[nd] respondent belatedly, she ``` ``` immediately responded to the same by submitting a complaint before the HMLand Registry. On ``` ``` inquiry with the officer attached to the Land Registry, the 2[nd] respondent came to know that an application purported to have been signed by her for transfer of her share in the aforesaid property in favour of the 1[st] accused and also a consent letter purported to have been issued by ``` ``` her, were received by the Registry and the process of transfer of the same was being taken based on the same. It is also learned that, by ``` ``` making use of the said consent letter and the applications allegedly sent by her, the ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 6 ``` petitioner availed a further business loan of GBP 100000 from General Asset Management Limited, UK, showing the complainant as a guarantor and offering their joint property as security. It was also learned that, as the petitioner committed defaults in repaying the instalments towards the said credit facility, recovery proceedings were initiated by General Asset Management Limited, U.K. On the request made by the 2[nd] respondent, the HM Land Registry forwarded to the 2[nd] respondent the copies of the application and consent letter and other related documents submitted by the petitioner to the Land Registry. On perusal of the same, the 2[nd] ``` ``` respondent realized that the transfer documents, including the consent letter, were claimed to have been signed by the 2[nd] respondent in the presence of the 3[rd] accused, who is a lawyer at Palakkad. It is also evident therefrom that, as per the said documents, the signature of the 2[nd] ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 7 ``` respondent was claimed to be affixed on 3.8.2019 ``` ``` at Palakkad in the presence of the 3[rd] accused, a lawyer. Along with the documents forwarded by the Land Registry to the 2nd respondent, the ``` ``` certificate of enrollment of the 3[rd] accused was also there. It is also alleged that, while taking a business loan from General Asset Management Limited UK, the petitioner had forged documents to create an impression that the 2[nd] ``` ``` respondent had agreed to stand as guarantor for the said loan transaction and to create a charge over the joint property. It is also alleged that ``` ``` the petitioner had forged the said documents. ``` ``` Annexure A complaint was submitted with the ``` ``` above allegations, and based on the same, ``` ``` Annexure-B F.I.R. was registered by Palakkad ``` ``` Town South Police Station for the offences ``` ``` mentioned above. This Crl.M.C. is filed for ``` ``` quashing Annexure-B F.I.R. and all further proceedings pursuant to it. ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 8 ``` 5.Heard Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the ``` ``` learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Sr.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.G. Harikumar G. Nair, the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. ``` ``` 6.The prayer for quashing Annexure-B FIR is sought by the petitioner/1st accused mainly on ``` ``` the ground that the registration of the Crime by ``` ``` the Palakkad Town South Police Station is unsustainable in law. The reason on which the said contention was raised is that the ``` ``` petitioner, even though a Keralite, is not an Indian citizen but is a U.K. national. To ``` ``` substantiate the same, he places reliance upon ``` ``` the copy of the passport, which is produced as ``` ``` Annexure-D along with Crl.M.A.No.1/2021. It is ``` ``` contended that, in addition to the fact that the ``` ``` petitioner is not a citizen of India, the ``` ``` documents alleged to have been forged were the ``` ``` documents intended for transferring the right of ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 9 ``` the 2[nd] respondent in respect of a property which ``` ``` is situated in London. Therefore, it is contended that since the documents were created for transferring a property situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Union of India and the petitioner being not a citizen of India, the offence alleged against him cannot be investigated by the Police in India. The aforesaid contention is raised by relying upon the stipulations contained in Sections 2,3, and 4 of IPC. ``` ``` 7. Therefore, the crucial question to be ``` ``` determined is whether the crime registered against the petitioner comes within the jurisdiction of the police in India and whether it is liable to be investigated and tried in India. As mentioned above, one of the crucial aspects is that the petitioner is a citizen of U.K., which is evident from his ``` ``` passport. Therefore, while proceeding to ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 10 ``` adjudicate the issues, the petitioner has to be ``` ``` treated as a foreign citizen. Thus, the question that arises here is whether the petitioner, who ``` ``` is a foreign citizen can be proceeded against in respect of a criminal case on the basis of Annexure-B F.I.R. For considering the said ``` ``` question, we should examine the statutory ``` ``` provisions as contemplated under Sections 2,3 ``` ``` and 4 of IPC, which reads as follows: ``` ``` 2.Punishment of offences committed within India ``` ``` Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which, he shall be guilty within India. ``` ``` 3.Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India. ``` ``` Any person liable, by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India. ``` ``` 4.Extension of Code to extra territorial offences ``` ``` The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by- ``` ``` (1)any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; ``` ``` (2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be; ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 11 ``` 3)any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India. ``` ``` 8.As per Section 2 of the IPC, every person ``` ``` who commits an offence in India is liable to be punished for the offence he committed, as per ``` ``` the laws applicable to the country. The crucial ``` ``` aspect is that Section 2 does not make any ``` ``` distinction between Indian citizens and foreign ``` ``` citizens. The only requirement is that the offence must have been committed in India. ``` ``` Section 3 of the Act contemplates punishment for ``` ``` the offences committed beyond India but which ``` ``` may be tried in India. As per the said ``` ``` provision, any person liable by any Indian law ``` ``` to be tried for an offence, if committed beyond ``` ``` India, shall be dealt with according to the ``` ``` provisions of this Code. Therefore, it is clear that if the person against whom the proceedings are initiated for committing an offence is liable by any Indian law to be tried for such an ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 12 ``` offence, he can be tried for such an offence irrespective of the question whether he is an Indian citizen or foreign citizen. Section 4 of the IPC deals with the extension of the application of the IPC for extraterritorial offences. The said provision contemplates for application of the Indian laws in respect of certain offences committed by certain persons beyond the territorial limits of India. Sub- section (1) of Section (4) contemplates that if any citizen of India commits an offence, he can be tried as per the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The crucial aspect to be noticed is that Sub-section (1) deals with the offences committed by a citizen of India and not anyone else. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides that any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India commits an offence, wherever such ship or aircraft may be, can be tried for the offence. Sub-section(3) of Section 4 provides that any ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 13 ``` person in any place without and beyond India ``` ``` committing an offence targeting a computer resource located in India, can be tried as per ``` ``` Indian law. The crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, among the various ``` ``` provisions in Section 4, only Sub-section(1) ``` ``` thereof deals with citizens of India. In all the ``` ``` other provisions, any person, irrespective of ``` ``` nationality, can be subject to Indian laws for prosecution if the offences are committed in the places mentioned in those provisions or in the manner contemplated therein. ``` ``` 9.Thus, from a joint reading of Sections 2,3 and 4 of the IPC, it is evident that merely because of the reason that accused is a foreign ``` ``` citizen, he cannot escape from the liability of being prosecuted under Indian laws if he falls in any of the categories mentioned in the aforesaid provisions. From the joint reading of ``` ``` the aforementioned provisions, it can be seen ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 14 ``` that any person, irrespective of his ``` ``` nationality, can be tried as per Indian law if ``` ``` such an offence is committed in India. ``` ``` 10. Therefore, the crucial aspect to be ``` ``` examined is whether the offences alleged in ``` ``` Annexures A and B were committed within the ``` ``` territorial jurisdiction of Indian law. It is to ``` ``` be noted that, the offences alleged against the ``` ``` petitioner are under Sections 465,468,471,420 ``` ``` r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The aforesaid ``` ``` provisions read as follows: ``` ``` “S.465.Punishment for forgery:Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. ``` ``` S.468. Forgery for purpose of cheating: Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 15 ``` punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. ``` ``` S.471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record:Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record. ``` ``` S.420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery or property:Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” ``` ``` 11.In this case, the specific allegation ``` ``` against the petitioner is that he had forged a letter to transfer the property of the 2nd ``` ``` respondent and also created a consent letter. The aforesaid documents are produced along with the Annexure-A complaint. I have gone through the contents of the same. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the recitals of the said document would indicate that the signature claimed to have been affixed ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 16 ``` by the 2nd respondent was on 3.8.2019 in the presence of the 3rd accused, who is a lawyer. The date of execution of the said document and the place with the full address thereof are ``` ``` clearly mentioned in the said document, which is ``` ``` in Kerala. As far as Section 465 IPC is ``` ``` concerned, the same deals with punishment for forgery, which is defined under Section 463. ``` ``` “463. Forgery: Whoevermakesanyfalse document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” ``` ``` From the said provision, it can be seen that the ``` ``` offence is committed when a false document is made with the intention to cause damage or injury or to any person for the purposes ``` ``` mentioned in the said provision. In other words, it is evident that the moment a person creates a false document with the intention to cause damage/injury to any person, the offence is ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 17 ``` committed. Therefore, even though the documents ``` ``` were created for the purpose of transferring property in London, since the forgery was allegedly committed in India, the moment such a false document was created, the offence of forgery was committed, and therefore, it can only be treated as an offence committed in India. ``` ``` 12.Section 468 IPC deals with the offence of ``` ``` forgery for the purpose of cheating. For that provision also, the moment the forgery is committed with the intention to use the ``` ``` documents so forged for the purpose of cheating, ``` ``` an offence has been committed and therefore, he ``` ``` is liable to be prosecuted for the said offence. ``` ``` It is to be noted that section 468 of the IPC deals with a situation where a person creates a false document with the intention to use the same for cheating. The creation of false ``` ``` documents with such intention is sufficient to ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 18 ``` attract the offence, and the offence is complete ``` ``` upon such creation. Therefore the contention that the cheating was in respect of a property beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India is not at all relevant as far as the said offences are concerned. ``` ``` 13. At the most, only in respect of an ``` ``` offence under Section 471 IPC the contention of the petitioner can have some relevance, as the said offence would get attracted only if the petitioner uses any document as genuine which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged. In this case, even going by the case of the 2nd ``` ``` respondent, the forged documents were used to transfer a property in London. Therefore, as far ``` ``` as the other offences except the offence falling under Section 471 IPC are concerned, all those offences were committed within India and the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted as per the Indian laws, irrespective of the facts that the ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 19 ``` petitioner is a foreign citizen and the alleged forgery was committed for creating documents which were to be used for transferring the properties in London. Therefore, the contentions in this regard raised by the petitioner are not legally sustainable. ``` ``` 14. Even though I found that, as far as the ``` ``` offence under Section 471 IPC is concerned, the same may not be applicable in respect of the transactions relating to the creation of the documents for the transfer of the property in London is concerned, I am of the view that, ``` ``` there are some other materials which would attract the offence under Section 471 IPC against the petitioner herein. The 2[nd] respondent producedcertaindocumentsalongwith Crl.M.A.No.2/2022, among them Annexure R2(a) is a witness statement given by the 3[rd] accused before the Land Tribunal, London. In the said statement, the circumstances under which the 3[rd] ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 20 ``` accused happened to attest the transfer document ``` ``` and consent letter purported to have been issued by the 2[nd] respondent were clearly explained. It is evident therefrom that the petitioner, when approached the 3[rd] accused, was accompanied by another person who claimed herself to be the 2[nd] respondent. To substantiate the same, the copy of the passport of the 2[nd] respondent was also made available to the 3[rd]accused. It is ``` ``` specifically mentioned by the 3[rd] accused in R2(a) that the passport shown to the 3[rd] accused was bearing number E-3590219, wherein the year of issuance of the same was shown as 2012 and the year of the expiry was shown as 2022. In Annexure R2(a), it is further averred by the 3[rd] accused that, later, the 2[nd]respondent ``` ``` approached him and showed the original passport wherein the passport bearing No.E3590219 issued in the name of the 2[nd] respondent had validity only up to 20.11.2012. The original passport of ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 21 ``` the 2[nd] respondent bearing No.R0554387, issued on ``` ``` 31.5.2017, was also produced before him. It is also discernible that the Police had already seized the original of the passport bearing No.E35902019 which had validity only till ``` ``` 20.11.2012, issued in the name of the 2[nd] ``` ``` respondent.This would indicate that, apart from the creation of the documents relating to the ``` ``` transfer of the property in London, the petitioner ``` ``` created a copy of the passport of 2[nd] respondent with ``` ``` false entries and the same was used for persuading ``` ``` the 3[rd] accused to attest the documents for the transfer of the property. Therefore, since the petitioner allegedly used a false document to create ``` ``` other documents and such false document was created in India, the offence under Section 471 IPC is also would prima facie attract as against the petitioner. ``` ``` 15.The learned counsel for the petitioner ``` ``` places reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court inJoseph Olakkengil v. State of Kerala [2022(2) KLT 285] to substantiate his contention ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 22 ``` that the petitioner being a foreign citizen, he cannot be prosecuted in India. However, I am of the view that the principles laid down in the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. That was a case where the prosecution for the offence under Section 376(2) and 506 of IPC was sought to be quashed by the petitioner therein on the ground that the incident, which is a subject matter of the crime, occurred in a foreign country. The accused therein was a British citizen, and even as per the prosecution case, the alleged sexual intercourseoccurredwhilethedefacto complainant was in UK. It was in that circumstances this Court held that the prosecution could not be launched against the accused in that case. Another decision relied on by the petitioner is Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat [2008(2)KLT 907].In the said case also, the incident occurred beyond the ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 23 ``` territorial limits of India, and therefore the ``` ``` aforesaid principles also cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.However, after perusing the records, I have already found that, in this case, the offences were committed in India; therefore, even though the petitioner is a foreign citizen, he can be subjected to Indian laws. ``` ``` 16.Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the question of forgery had already been adjudicated before the authorities in London and, therefore, there ``` ``` is no scope for further investigation in the matter. I am not at all inclined to accept the said contention. It is to be noted that the ``` ``` aforesaid contention is raised by the petitioner ``` ``` on the ground that, subsequently, when the property in London was being proceeded against for the realization of the amounts taken as loan by the petitioner, a claim was raised by the 2[nd] ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 24 ``` respondent based on the allegation of commission ``` ``` of forgery. It is true that, as per Annexure-G, ``` ``` the application submitted by the 2[nd] respondent ``` ``` on the basis of the said claim was dismissed. ``` ``` However, the aforesaid claim was made in recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of General Asset Management Limited. The questions whether any forgery was committed or not, or as to whether the petitioner is to be ``` ``` prosecuted for the same or not, were not matters ``` ``` which came up within the zone of consideration of the High Court of Justice Queens Bench ``` ``` decision while passing Annexure-G order. ``` ``` Therefore, under no circumstances can the ``` ``` aforesaid contentions be accepted to curtail the investigation which is now in progress against the petitioner. ``` ``` Thus, after perusing all the materials placed on record, I do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere in the investigation that is being ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 25 `conducted based on Annexure-B F.I.R.` ``` Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed as it is devoid of any merits. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` ``` pkk ``` CRL.MC No.4484 of 2021 26 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4484/2021` |`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:`|`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:`| |---|---| |`Annexure A`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1-3-`| ||`2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE`| ||`OFFICER, PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION`| ||`PALAKKAD`| |`ANNEXURE B`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION`| ||`REPORT IN CRIME NO. 208/2021 OF PALAKKAD`| ||`TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT`| |`ANNEXURE C`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION FILED BY`| ||`PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.A NO.`| ||`12682/2014 IN O.P(F.C) NO. 434/2014 BEFORE`| ||`THIS HON'BLE COURT.`| |`ANNEXURE D`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`| ||`PASSPORT ISSUED BY UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT`| ||`BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND TO PETITIONER`| |`ANNEXURE E`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2022 IN`| ||`TITLE NO.MX369992 PASSED BY THE PROPERTY`| ||`CHAMBER, LAND REGISTRATION FIRST TIER`| ||`TRIBUNAL UK`| |`ANNEXURE F`|`TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED`| ||`5.3.2022 BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND`| ||`GENERAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD.`| |`ANNEXURE G`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2021 PASSED`| ||`BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH`| ||`DIVISION IN CLAIM NO.D7PP366 WRIT NUMBER EN`| ||`70/2021`| |`ANNEXURE H`|`TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED`| ||`20.06.2022 ISSUED BY EDWARD FOREST TO`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`ANNEXURE I`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY EMAIL`| ||`DATED 5.5.2022 FROM THE HM LAND REGISTRY,`| ||`DURHAM OFFICE TO PETITIONER.`| |`RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:`|| |`ANNEXURE R2(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 29.09.2021`| |`ANNEXURE R2(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ACTUAL PASSPORT BEARING`| ||`NO.E3590219 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT`| |`ANNEXURE R2(C)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT PAGE AS FORGED BY`| ||`THE FIRST ACCUSED.`|