SURENDRANATHA MENON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Quashment of the charge sheet laid in Crime No. 250 of 1996 registered by the Mala Police under S.420 I.P.C. is sought for in this Crl. M. C. filed under S.482 Cr. P. C. When this Crl. M.C. came up for hearing today counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the learned Magistrate (Judicial I Class Magistrate, Chalakudy) to consider all the contentions raised by him in this Crl. M. C. at the time of considering the question whether charge is to be framed against him or not.

(2.) I need not state here the precise accusation made against the petitioner in the challan laid by the police.

(3.) Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration 1996 SCC (Crl.) 1104 held that under S.239 Cr. P. C., which deals with the trial of warrant cases on police report, the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. There is nothing in the Code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage, which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the court at that stage. Recently in Om Prakash Sharma v. C.B.I., Delhi 2000 SCC (Crl.) 1014 Supreme Court held that if the accused could produce any relevant material even at that stage which might totally affect even the very sustainability of the case, a refusal to even look into the materials so produced may result in injustice, apart from averting an exercise in futility at the expense of valuable judicial / public time.