IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009/4TH KARTHIKA, 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1623 of 2006 ( ) --------------------------- CC.303/2002 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.: ---------------------- 1. T.V.GANGADHARAN, S/O.CHANDU, CHAIRMAN, CANARA AGRO RESEARCH AND GROWERS (INDIA)LTD. P.B.NO.76, VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHURE ROAD KASARAGOD NOW AMALGAMATED AS KASARAGOD SELF EMPLOYEES FINANCIING COMPANY LTD., KASARAGOD. 2. M.JAYASHEELA, W/O.T.V.GANGADHARAN, DIRECTOR, CANARA AGRO REASERCH AND GROWERS (INDIA) LTD., VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHURE ROAD KASARAGOD, NOW AMALGAMATED AS KASARAGOD SELF EMPLOYEES FINANCING COMPANY LTD., KASARAGOD. 3. SATHEESAN.K. DIRECTOR, CANARA AGRO RESEARCH AND GROWERS (INDIA)LTD., P.B.NO.76 VIKAS BHAVAN, MADHURE ROAD, KASARAGOD NOW AMALAGAMATED AS KASARAGOD SELF EMPLOYEES FINANCING COMPANY LTD., KASARAGOD. BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE.: -------------------------------------- 1. K.VARIJAKSHAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KOLATHINGAL POST KOTTOOR, VIA MULIYAR, KASARGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 1623 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is a petition filed to quash Annexure-I and Annexure-II, the complaint and also the charge framed by the court under Section 420 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners, who are accused nos. 1 to 3. 2. Heard both sides. In the course of arguments, a question arose whether this Court can set aside the charge framed by the court by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. In a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Prabhakaran v. Excise Circle Inspector (1992 (2) KLT 860), it was held that “framing of charge may or may not amount to interlocutory order as it depends upon facts of the case, the statute under which proceedings have been initiated, as also the nature of objections raised against it etc. If the objection or objections raised against the order framing charge are such that upholding such objection/objections would result in termination of the proceedings, then framing of charge cannot be regarded as merely interlocutory order for the purpose of revisional jurisdiction under [Cr.M.C.No.1623/2006] 2 Section 397(2) of the Code.” Thus, it is clear that depending upon the facts and circumstances, a revision may lie or may not lie against an order framing of charge depends upon various factors. 3. In this case, there are various disputed facts and to decide whether the order of framing charge can be set aide or not, it would be necessary to resolve certain disputed questions of fact. But, such an exercise cannot be done in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge. In a case in which the petitioner has other remedies, normally, this Court will not interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. It is settled that Section 482 can be involved only in exceptional circumstances. If the arguments of the petitioners are accepted, this is a case where the entire proceedings will have to come to an end since according to petitioner's counsel the framing of charge is illegal and the charge has to be quashed and consequently the entire proceedings have to be quashed. Therefore, in the light of the arguments raised, it may appear that the order framing charge may not be an interlocutory order. Hence, dictum in Prabhakarn's case referred above may apply. [Cr.M.C.No.1623/2006] 3 5. At any rate, this is not a fit case to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order framing charge. There is also no ground to quash the complaint, since the allegations therein prima facie constitute an offence and that is why the charge is framed. I am not inclined to exercise my powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. However, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners may be given an opportunity to file a revision since this petition was admitted and the maintainability was not considered at that stage. 7. On hearing both sides, I find that this petition can be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move for appropriate remedy at the appropriate forum. The dismissal of this petition will not stand in the way of their seeking appropriate remedy, This petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. krs.