IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 197 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- CC.420/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST ACCUSED -------------------------------- DR.KESHAVA PRASADA CH., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.CH.GOPALAKRISHNA BHATT (LATE), AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT CHALATHADKA HOUSE, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KUNDIKANA P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT.P.SHARADA AMMA, W/O.LATE GANAPATHY BHATT, RESIDING AT PILIYOOR HOUSE, VORKADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.SUNKADAKATTE (VIA MANJESHWAR) REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHYAM BHAT.K., AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O.LATE SHANKARA NARAYANA BHAT, R/AT PARAMOGARU HOUSE, MEENGA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRABABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO.243 OF 2008 CRRP NO. 244 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NOs. 197, 243 & 244 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER First accused in C.C.420 of 2002, 421 of 2002 and 422 of 2002 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod is the revision petitioner. Revision petitions are filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order framing charge against the accused. Second accused is the father of first petitioner, who is no more. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against petitioner and second accused for the offences under Section 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent, complainant were heard. The case of the second respondent complainant in all the cases was that petitioner and his father, second accused, who are related to first respondent, approached second respondent stating that they are Directors of the Public Limited Company by name, 'M.M.Infotech Ltd` and they are authorised to receive deposits from the general public for the company and if the amount is deposited, second respondent can get fabulous returns. They induced first CRRP 197/08 & CONN.CASES 2 respondent to part with Rs.30,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively and issued deposit receipts, promising to refund the money after three years with interest. Later getting information that M.M.Infotech company had gone bankrupt, second respondent approached petitioner/second accused. But they gave evasive answers. On suspicion, when second respondent made enquiries, accused disclosed that they have nothing to do with the company. It was alleged that second respondent was induced to part with money and the inducement was made by the accused, in furtherance of the common intention to cheat second respondent and they thereby committed offences under Section 406 and 420 IPC. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate omitted to take note of the fact that company is not impleaded in the complaint and petitioner had nothing to do with M.M.Infotech Ltd and Learned Magistrate should not have framed the charges against petitioner, finding a prima facie case. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate finding a prima facie case or framing charge. The CRRP 197/08 & CONN.CASES 3 case of second respondent in the complaint is that it was on the inducement of both the accused, including petitioner, she had parted with the money. It was contended that inducement was made with the intention to cheat her. The question whether materials produced by second respondent are sufficient enough to enter a conviction is not to be decided at this stage. The only question to be considered is whether the allegations, as it stands, if accepted, would be sufficient to convict the petitioner. When there is a specific case that there was inducement by the petitioner and second accused and it was with the intention to cheat and second respondent parted with money consequent to the inducement, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. Petitioner is entitled to take up sufficiency of the evidence at the time of trial. All the Revision petitions are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-