IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2935 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- CC.28/2006 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM CRL.R.P.NO.41/07 OF SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- VASUDEVAN PILLAI, HOUSE NO.CC 50/100, NEAR PUTHENVEEDU, ST.JAMES ROAD VYTILA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, ERNAKULAM BRANCH. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. on the basis of a F.I. Statement lodged before the police by the first respondent. Crime has been registered as Crime No. 676 of 2005 of Central Police station, Ernakulam. 2. The crux of the allegations in the said F.I. Statement is that the petitioner had fraudulently misled the officials of the State Bank of Mysore and availed a loan of Rs.12.5 lakhs by misutilising the original title deeds which he had clandestinely and fraudulently removed from the possession of the Registrar of Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner, who had produced it before the State Bank of Travancore, had clandestinely come into possession of those title deeds while they were in the possession of the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and suppressing that fact he has misled and fraudulently deceived the officials of the State Bank of Mysore and availed a loan on the strength of those documents.. This in short is the allegation raised. Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008 2 3. According to the petitioner, he has not produced the original documents before the State Bank of Travancore. According to him, the State Bank of Travancore had never produced those documents before the Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is his further contention that those documents were always available with him; he had handed over those documents as security to the State Bank of Travancore and that he had no occasion to take away those documents stealthily from the possession of the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. The Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in turn, had filed a complaint before the S.H.O., Thevara alleging that those documents were fraudulently and stealthily taken away by the petitioner. On the basis of that complaint, Crime No. 166 of 2005 was registered at the Thevara police station. Investigation into that crime is continuing. Final report has not been filed yet. It is at this juncture that the State Bank of Mysore had lodged the F.I. Statement and Annex.A1 crime, Crime No. 676 of 2005 of Central Police station was registered. In that crime, investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner had appeared before the Chief Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008 3 Judicial Magistrate. He had pleaded discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by Annex.A7 had framed charge against the petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C. That order framing charge was challenged before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and by the impugned order, copy of which is Ann.A8, the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, had dismissed the said revision petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, i.e. Annex.A8, passed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. A second revision petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the clear language of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. That obviously explains why the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition bearing the label of a Crl.M.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A second revision being not maintainable, compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify this Court considering the challenge in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. notwithstanding such specific bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am unable to agree that if the allegations raised are true and correct, the Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008 4 charge under Section 420 I.P.C. will not stand at all. At any rate, I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order warrants interference by invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that if the trial in this proceedings were to commence even before the final report was filed in Crime No.166 of 2005, which is being investigated by the Thevara police, great hardship and inconvenience would be caused to the petitioner. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to avoid any prejudice, inconvenience or loss for the petitioner by the continuance of the trial in C.C. 28 of 2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam before the final report is filed in Crime No.166 of 2005 of Thevara police station. 8. The petitioner must raise this contention before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner's submission that before the investigation into crime alleging commission of theft/fraudulent removal of the documents in question from the possession of the Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, is completed and final Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008 5 report is filed, trial in C.C.No.28 of 2006 should not proceed, does appear to me to be reasonable. The petitioner can make that request before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate must consider such request and pass appropriate orders on merits. Needless to say, if aggrieved by such order, the petitioner shall have the avenues of challenge available to him under the law. 9. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm