IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4781 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.19/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.1/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, TC.NO.9/1280, 'DWARAKA'TEMPLE ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): REVISION COUNTER PETITIONERS/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GRACEAMMA THOMAS, PLOT NO.62,THILAK NAGAR, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. by PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4781 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10 th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner herein is that he fraudulently deceived the complainant by inducing him to accept a cheque for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs dated 24.07.03 drawn on an account maintained by the petitioner with a bank, which account had been closed even prior to the date of issue of the cheque. 2. Cognizance was taken. Enquiry under Section 244 Cr.P.C was conducted. The petitioner advanced his claim for discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate felt that evidence, which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction, has been adduced by the complainant. Accordingly charges were framed against the petitioner. Against that, a revision was filed. The learned Sessions Judge in revision turned down the challenge and upheld the order framing charge. Crl.M.C. No.4781 of 2008 2 3. The second revision is proscribed under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C and that explains why the petitioner has come to this Court with the label of Section 482 Cr.P.C affixed on this petition. 4. A second revision is barred and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify this Court entertaining a challenge against the concurrent orders invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Of course, if compelling circumstances are there, that can persuade this Court to conclude that the interests of justice warrant invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction and the impugned order can be quashed. 5. At the stage of framing charges under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C, no court is expected to undertake the sublime exercise of weighing the evidence in golden scales. A case “which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction” is sufficient to justify the order framing charge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. The possible defences need not be gone into. Meticulous evaluation of the materials need not be undertaken. That exercise is to be postponed to a later stage. The requirement at the stage of Crl.M.C. No.4781 of 2008 3 Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C has been loosely referred to as the requirement to establish “a prima facie case”. 6. The counsel contends that there is nothing to show that the petitioner was aware of the fact of closure of the account even if the entire evidence were accepted. The account was closed on 02.04.01 according to the bank's officials. According to them, it was closed in accordance with the terms of the contract between the bank and the customer. According to them, such involuntary closure was communicated to the petitioner by proper notice issued from the bank. These circumstances were relied on to contend that it was not a case of involuntary closure of the account, of which the petitioner was not aware of. The cheque bore the date 24.07.03 and the closure was effected as early as on 02.04.01. At the moment and with the available inputs and considering the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of the criminal Court at the stage of Section 245(1) Cr.P.C, I am not persuaded to agree that framing of charges under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C was not justified. I do not, in these circumstances, find any reason to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.4781 of 2008 4 7. Lest any unintended message may be conveyed, I make it clear that I have not intended to express any final or authentic opinion on the question whether the petitioner was aware of the involuntary closure or not. That question must be decided by the learned Magistrate at a later stage on the basis of the evidence already available and to be adduced by the rival contestants in the course of trial. 8. This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-