IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1216 of 2001(B) ------------------------------ CC.159/1999 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- K.V. RADHA, W/O.V.M. RAGHAVAN, 'SRUTHI', INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. K. KARUNAKARAN, S/O. KUNDAN, POOLAPPADAM, PATHAR, UPPADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. JAI GEORGE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1216 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of June 2008 ORDER This revision petition is against an order of discharge under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint filed by her against respondent No.2 herein. 2. Petitioner alleged in the complaint that respondent No.2/accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.75,000/- towards repayment of the loan advanced by the petitioner. The accused had made the complainant believe that the cheque would be honoured when it was presented for encashment. The accused had also given an impression that the cheque was being drawn from his own account. However, when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured since the signature differed and also since there was no sufficient funds in the account of the accused. The learned Magistrate, after considering the averments in the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant, issued process to the accused to face charge Crl.R.P.No.1216 OF 2001 :: 2 :: under Section 420 IPC. 3. The complainant was later examined as PW1. She deposed that the accused was the son of a maid servant who had worked in the household sometime ago. The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from her in 1997 promising to repay it soon. Later, he issued Ext.P1 cheque assuring the complainant that it could be encashed from the bank. 4. As stated earlier, the cheque was dishonoured when it was presented. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued the cheque from someone else's account. Thus he had intentionally cheated the complainant knowing full well that there was no money in the account at all. But in the course of cross examination, the complainant admitted that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused as security at the time when the money was lent to him. She further asserted that she had given the money after the cheque was given by the accused. In re-examination an attempt was made to save the situation. The complainant stated that the money was lent in the year 1997. But the cheque was issued in 1999. She further reiterated in Crl.R.P.No.1216 OF 2001 :: 3 :: the re-examination that she had given the money after obtaining the cheque and also that money was lent on the strength of the acquaintance with the accused. 5. The learned Magistrate had considered the entire materials available on record. The complainant had not bothered to examine any other witness in support of his case. The learned Magistrate took the view that the evidence adduced by the complainant would not make out a prima facie case against the accused which, if unrebutted, would have warranted the conviction. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of discharge. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes