IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3231 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.637/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------- ABDUL KHADER @ ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.UNNIMOIDEEN, PATHUR HOUSE, KODINJI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMESHAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, CHOOLIYAD, MALAPATTAM-670021. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3231 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.637/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur. He was the 3rd accused in C.C.No.509/2004. That was a private complaint filed against three accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Secs.420 and 468 IPC. It is submitted that A1 and A2 in the aforesaid case were subsequently discharged by the learned Magistrate after recording the pre-charge evidence. This accused was absconding and so his case was split up and was re-numbered as C.C.637/2005. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the other two accused were already discharged and also there is no material to show that this accused had committed the offences as mentioned above, he is to be discharged. It is important to note that the complaint was filed alleging offences punishable under Secs.420 and 468 IPC, hence the procedure for warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report has Crl.M.C. No.3231 of 2011 -: 2 :- to be followed by the learned Magistrate. For that purpose pre- charge evidence has to be recorded and only after recording that evidence, the learned Magistrate can form an opinion as to whether the charge is groundless or whether there are materials to proceed against the accused; in other words, whether the evidence on record if un-rebutted would be sufficient to enter a verdict of guilt. Therefore, after recording the pre-charge evidence, the learned Magistrate will hear the petitioner as to whether there is material to proceed further as mentioned above. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of in the light of the directions issued as above. The accused will appear before the learned Magistrate within two weeks from today. His application for bail shall be considered on merit. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt