Single judge of Kerala HC dismissed revision petition against order dismissing application for discharge in criminal trial involving forgery and criminal conspiracy. No interference warranted as prima facie case exists.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/29TH JYAISHTA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 803 of 2012 (A)
AGAINST ORDER DATED 18-01-2012 CRMP.NO.9540/2011 IN CC.204/2010 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
MANDHAKINI. V.G, W/O. LENIN, AGED 31 YEARS ARANGATH HOUSE
VADANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SRI.SAJU J PANICKER
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA (THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR TOWN POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 528/2010) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. =========================== CRL. R.P. NO. 803/2012
===========================
Dated this the 19th day of June 2012
O R D E R
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 18-1-2012 in Criminal M.P. No. 9540/2011 in C.C. No. 204/2010 of the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioner is arraigned as the 2nd accused in C.C.No. 204/2010. The 1st accused is her husband. The allegation against them is that they hatched a conspiracy with the help of the 3rd accused and created forged deeds and with an intention to make unlawful gain they pledged such forged deeds with various banks and misappropriated amounts. The allegation against the 1st accused, the husband was that he had pledged his property obtained as per deed No. 632/2006 dated 13-03-2006 of Sub Registrars Office, Vadanappilly with the Vadanappilly branch of the District Co-operative Bank, Thrissur and before redeeming the said
CRL. R.P. NO. 803/2012 #2#
mortgage he offered the same as security for the chitty prized the Kerala State Financial Enterprises, Thrissur main branch. That apart, to obtain loan from another chitty he created a sale deed and forged the signature and seal as in the original documents and obtained amounts from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises. Thereafter, similar copy of the original document was pledged with H.D.F.C, Machingal Line Branch by affixing seals and the first accused and the petitioner obtained house loan to the tune of Rs. 23,92,090/-. It was in the said circumstances that the revision petitioner herein and her husband were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 &2 respectively in the said crime alleging commission of offences under Sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
therein has filed Crl. M.P. No. 9540/2011 in the said C.C. under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.
CRL. R.P. NO. 803/2012 #3#
The court below after considering the materials before it arrived at the conclusion that there are sufficient ground for framing charge against revision petitioner as prima facie, she had also shared the common intention with the other accused. In that view of the matter, the application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed as per the impugned order.
public prosecutor made available the case diary for my perusal. Having perused the case diary and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Essentially, the case of the revision petitioner is that her signature was also forged by accused Nos. 1 & 3. No doubt, it is a matter of evidence. This court cannot record a finding on the said issue without recording the evidence and certainly, that could be done
CRL. R.P. NO. 803/2012 #4#
only by the trial court at the appropriate stage. Though in a petition for discharge the learned Magistrate is not expected to make an explicit examination of the evidence it is desirable to pass a reasoned order as the order in a petition for discharge is revisable. However, in this case, having perused the case diary I do not think that it would be in the interest of justice to interfere with the impugned order as there is prima facie case against the revision petitioner. Only if the charge can be said to be ground less against her to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate could have discharged the revision petitioner. I have no doubt that in this case the final report and the materials sent along with it would not justify a discharge of the revision petitioner at this stage. This court cannot embark upon an enquiry to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner. In short, the challenge against the impugned order has to fail. No case has been made out warranting interference by this court exercising revisional jurisdiction.
CRL. R.P. NO. 803/2012
#5#
of the physical presence of the revision petitioner before the court below on 9-4-2012 and thereafter, it was extended from time to time. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the said circumstances, made a submission that the said order shall be ordered to be continued. I am not inclined to allow the said prayer. However, it will be open to the petitioner to make a proper application before the court below for dispensing her physical presence before the trial court and in case such an application has been filed, it shall be disposed of, in accordance with law, by the trial court. In the circumstances, subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)
kvr/
/True Copy/ P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the revision petitioner's application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC.
Whether the prima facie case against the revision petitioner warrants her discharge at the admission stage of the criminal trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mandhakini V.G
State of Kerala
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
