IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3431 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.605/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMESWARAN, S/O. LATE KOCHAYYAPPAN, CHANIYIL, KANJUKKUZHY VILLAGE, S.N.PURAM, CHARAMANGALAM, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREELAL, S/O. PRAKASAN, SREENILAYAM, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 524. 3. E.S.BALASOMAN PILLAI, ANJALI, WARD NO.34, THAMPURATTIPPARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI - 682 024. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3431 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February,2011 O R D E R The complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is the revision petitioner. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 21.8.2010 in CMP No.639 of 2010, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 only against first accused and refused to take cognizance against second accused. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. against the second accused on a wrong understanding that the second accused has received no benefit out of the transaction. 3. According to the revision petitioner, in the year 2006, first accused approached the revision petitioner with a request to offer his residential property for a loan of Crl.R.PNO.3431 of 2010 :-2-: Rs.5 lakhs to be availed of from the Union Bank of India, Alappuzha Branch wherein the second accused was working as the Manager. So, according to the complainant, he went along with first accused only for the purpose of pledging his property in favour of the first accused for availing only a loan of Rs.5 lakhs. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that on reaching the Bank, the second accused asked him to put signatures on several printed papers and when requested him to give a translation of the contents of the documents, second accused refused to do so and thereafter, as insisted by A1 and A2, he put his signatures on the papers shown to him by the second accused and subsequently, he came to know that he was forced to put his signatures not only for the loan of Rs.5 lakhs, but also fraudulently obtained his signatures on the paper purportedly undertaking the liability of Rs.7 lakhs connected with the previous loan availed of by the first accused from the very same bank. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that he was cheated by the accused including Crl.R.PNO.3431 of 2010 :-3-: second accused, by obtaining his signatures on the papers connected with previous loan of Rs.7 lakhs availed of by the first accused, after having induced and made believe him that the papers shown to him to put his signature are connected with the fresh loan of Rs.5 lakhs for the first accused, in spite of his request to second accused to explain the contents of such document. So, according to the petitioner, second accused is equally responsible for cheating and he is also liable to be proceeded against for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. 4. On a perusal of the order impugned, it can be seen that the learned Magistrate had noted the allegations against the second accused/Manager that he failed to explain the contents of the document signed by the complainant in the presence of second accused. According to the revision petitioner/complainant, as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, though he requested the second accused to explain the contents of the documents, he never Crl.R.PNO.3431 of 2010 :-4-: disclosed that the documents shown before him to put his signature are also pertaining to the earlier loan by which the first accused availed of loan of Rs.7 lakhs. According to the learned Magistrate, the complainant was brought before the Manager/A2 by A1 and he alone received the benefit of loan transaction. The Magistrate has further observed that second accused/Manager simply represented the Bank and he did not get any benefit. According to me,the above finding is not supported with any legally sustainable reasons. There is no detailed discussion regarding the contents of the sworn statement of the complainant as well as his witnesses so as to come to such a conclusion. In order to attract Section 420, there need not be any benefit to the person who induced the cheated person into the transaction. But, regarding those aspects, there is no discussion in the order. Therefore, according to me, it is only just and proper to remit the matter back to the court for fresh consideration and for passing a reasoned order. Crl.R.PNO.3431 of 2010 :-5-: In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 21.8.2010 in CMP No.639 of 2010 to the extent it is not taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. against second accused and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the petition as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which is to be produced by the revision petitioner, untrammelled by any of the observation or finding contained in this order. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.PNO.3431 of 2010 :-6-: