IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2072 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.985/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN.K.V., AGED 70, S/O.KIZHAKKANOOT VELAYUDHAN, P.O.PUZHAKKAL, MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. A.K.RAVINDRAN, AGED 43, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AMBALATHARA HOUSE, P.O.PUZHAKKAL, MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSHI, AGED 40, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KIZHAKKANOOT HOUSE, AMBAZHAKKAD, ASTHAMICHIRA, THRISSUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2072 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30 th day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a prosecution initiated against them on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The petitioners are father and brother in law of the defacto complainant. The 1st accused/1st petitioner had come to this Court earlier with a prayer for quashing of proceedings and by Annexure-F order dated 29.03.05 in Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2005, the said petition was allowed in part and cognizance taken under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C was set aside. But it was however directed that “the court below shall, after perusal of the records may take cognizance of such offence or offences as are disclosed from records and proceed against the petitioners”. 2. When the matter went back to the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, has now chosen to frame charges against the accused under Sections 120 B , 465 and 468 I.P.C. The petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C No.2072 of 2008 2 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in detail. The counsel has taken pains to take me through the details of the allegations and the materials placed before the Court. I have been taken through the earlier order passed by another Bench of this Court in Annexure-F. 4. The order framing charge is a revisable order and Annexure-G charge already framed by the learned Magistrate has not been challenged in revision. Be that as it may, without going into that technicality, I have considered the prayer for quashing of proceedings by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. The short question to be considered is whether the impugned order, ie. Annexure-G order framing charges, is vitiated by any such vice which should warrant or justify the invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring about a premature termination of the proceedings. 6. The crux of the allegations is that the defacto complainant/son had entrusted blank cheques to the dealer of a motor cycle. Those cheques were towards payment of instalments. When the defacto complainant returned to his place Crl.M.C No.2072 of 2008 3 of employment abroad, the 1st accused/father was permitted to dispose of the motor cycle and discharge the liability to the dealer. The liability was discharged and the blank signed cheques available with the dealer were allegedly taken back by the 1st accused on behalf of the defacto complainant. Out of the said cheques which had thus come into the possession of the 1st accused, one was misused by forging the same to make it appear that it was a cheque issued to the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused allegedly presented the same and got it dishonoured. He thereafter issued a notice of demand under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the reply notice, the present version is seen broadly stated. No prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is initiated. But however, the defacto complainant has chosen to initiate this prosecution against his father and brother in law. 7. Consideration of the totality of circumstances does not at all persuade this Court to hold that the charges raised under Sections 120 B, 465 and 468 I.P.C are so grossly unsustainable as to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner wants various contentions to be advanced. According to him the cheque was filled up and handed over by the Crl.M.C No.2072 of 2008 4 1st accused to the 2nd accused in the presence of the defacto complainant as agreed by him. He has a further contention that after issuance of a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a reply, the matter was settled between the parties and the allegedly forged negotiable instrument/cheque was returned to the defacto complainant. At the moment and with the available materials, I cannot certainly render a finding on those disputed questions of facts. Suffice it to say that it shall be for the petitioner to raise all their contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of trial. The learned Magistrate, under law, is obliged to consider the same and come to appropriate conclusion. At the moment the defence urged cannot be accepted by this Court and premature termination cannot be brought about accepting such unilateral assertions of the petitioners. 8. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe at the risk of repetition that I have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the contentions or the credibility of the data collected. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is the father of the defacto complainant and is Crl.M.C No.2072 of 2008 5 aged about 70 years. Great prejudice, hardship and loss would result if his personal insistence were insisted on all dates of posting. I find no reason why such personal appearance must be ritualistically insisted by any court. The 1st petitioner can certainly apply before the learned Magistrate for exemption from appearance. I find no reason why such petition cannot be considered favourably by the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-