IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 348 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- CC.476/2010 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1-4 --------------------------------------------- 1. P.V.SURENDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHAMBULLY HOUSE, BLANGAD, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. P.V.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHAMBULLY HOUSE, BLANGAD, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. P.V.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHAMBULLY HOUSE, BLANGAD, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.A.JOHNY, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, MAROKKI HOUSE, KAPPIYOOR DESOM, POOKODE AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.348 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C. No.476 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad for offences punishable under 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that one Murraleedharan subscribed to a Chitty in the name of his minor daughter and later prized the same in the auction. Respondent No.2 was a surety to that transaction and he signed the Kuri agreement. Muraleedharan handed over certain blank cheques, signed blank papers and blank stamp papers to respondent No.2. It is the case of petitioners that the said documents were forged. Learned counsel submitted that it is a case where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance merely on the sworn statement of respondent No.2 and that even the alleged forged documents are not produced before court. Learned counsel therefore argued that it is a fit case where complaint and cognizance against petitioners are to be quashed. 2. Petitioners have a remedy under Section 245(1) or (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to plead discharge in the trial CRL.M.C. No. 348 of 2011 -: 2 :- court. In such a situation there is no reason why this Court should interfere under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 3. Learned counsel requested that petitioners may be permitted to plead for discharge appearing through counsel. That is a matter which the learned Magistrate has to decide if appropriate application stating reasons is filed before the learned Magistrate. If any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall consider that application and pass appropriate orders as circumstances warranted. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed without prejudice to right of petitioners to plead discharge under Section 245(1) or (2) of the Code. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv