IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2935 of 2008(Y)
1. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, HOUSE NO.CC 50/100,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Section 420 I.P.C. on the basis of a F.I. Statement lodged before
the police by the first respondent. Crime has been registered as
Crime No. 676 of 2005 of Central Police station, Ernakulam.
2. The crux of the allegations in the said F.I. Statement is
that the petitioner had fraudulently misled the officials of the
State Bank of Mysore and availed a loan of Rs.12.5 lakhs by
misutilising the original title deeds which he had clandestinely
and fraudulently removed from the possession of the Registrar of
Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner, who had produced it
before the State Bank of Travancore, had clandestinely come into
possession of those title deeds while they were in the possession
of the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and suppressing
that fact he has misled and fraudulently deceived the officials of
the State Bank of Mysore and availed a loan on the strength of
those documents.. This in short is the allegation raised.
Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008
2
3. According to the petitioner, he has not produced the original
documents before the State Bank of Travancore. According to him, the
State Bank of Travancore had never produced those documents before
the Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is his further contention that
those documents were always available with him; he had handed over
those documents as security to the State Bank of Travancore and that
he had no occasion to take away those documents stealthily from the
possession of the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
4. The Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in turn, had
filed a complaint before the S.H.O., Thevara alleging that those
documents were fraudulently and stealthily taken away by the
petitioner. On the basis of that complaint, Crime No. 166 of 2005 was
registered at the Thevara police station. Investigation into that crime
is continuing. Final report has not been filed yet. It is at this juncture
that the State Bank of Mysore had lodged the F.I. Statement and
Annex.A1 crime, Crime No. 676 of 2005 of Central Police station was
registered. In that crime, investigation is complete. Final report has
already been filed. The petitioner had appeared before the Chief
Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008
3
Judicial Magistrate. He had pleaded discharge under Section 239
Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by Annex.A7 had framed charge
against the petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C. That order framing
charge was challenged before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and by
the impugned order, copy of which is Ann.A8, the learned Sessions
Judge, Ernakulam, had dismissed the said revision petition. The
petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, i.e. Annex.A8, passed in
revision by the learned Sessions Judge.
5. A second revision petition at the instance of the petitioner is
not maintainable in view of the clear language of Section 397(3)
Cr.P.C. That obviously explains why the petitioner has come to this
Court with this petition bearing the label of a Crl.M.C. under Section
482 Cr.P.C. A second revision being not maintainable, compelling
reasons must be shown to exist to justify this Court considering the
challenge in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
notwithstanding such specific bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am
unable to agree that if the allegations raised are true and correct, the
Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008
4
charge under Section 420 I.P.C. will not stand at all. At any rate, I am
not persuaded to agree that the impugned order warrants interference
by invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that if
the trial in this proceedings were to commence even before the final
report was filed in Crime No.166 of 2005, which is being investigated
by the Thevara police, great hardship and inconvenience would be
caused to the petitioner. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be
issued to avoid any prejudice, inconvenience or loss for the petitioner
by the continuance of the trial in C.C. 28 of 2006 before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam before the final report is filed in Crime
No.166 of 2005 of Thevara police station.
8. The petitioner must raise this contention before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner’s submission that before the
investigation into crime alleging commission of theft/fraudulent
removal of the documents in question from the possession of the
Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, is completed and final
Crl.M.C.No. 2935 of 2008
5
report is filed, trial in C.C.No.28 of 2006 should not proceed, does
appear to me to be reasonable. The petitioner can make that request
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate must consider such request and pass appropriate orders on
merits. Needless to say, if aggrieved by such order, the petitioner shall
have the avenues of challenge available to him under the law.
9. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm