SUVARNA VIJAYAN Vs. OMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the first accused in C.C. 337 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged are under Sections 420, 465 and 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The plea is that going by the averments in the final report no offence is made out against the petitioner and that the case arose out o a loan transaction whereby the defacto complaint availed a loan of Rupees two lakhs and there was no fraud, forgery or deception. I have heard Sri. Unni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Madhusoodanan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and her son, the second accused. Perused the final report and connected records. Going by the averments in the final report, I find that, there are sufficient averments to send the petitioner for trial. In other way, averments in the final report make out the offences alleged Prosecution case is that the defacto complainant, applied for a housing loan of Rs. 25,000/- before the Kerala Housing Finance Ltd.; where the petitioner was the Manager. The petitioner, in furtherance of his common' intention with the second accused, who is a surety, forged the loan application to one for Rs. 2,00,000./-, sanctioned that amount and withdrew the whole amount; But only Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the defacto complainant. The plea of the learned counsel for' the petitioner is that the loan application was for Rs. 2,00,000/- and payment was made through account payee cheque and it was encashed by the defacto complainant through her account in a District Co-operative Bank and that there was no fraud, forgery-or deception and that the loan was availed for constructing house and it was constructed. It was also alleged that the second accused, who is the son of the defacto complainant might have committed fraud on the defacto complainant and that it is a dispute in between the defacto complainant and her son in which the petitioner was no way involved. Going by the documents produced and the arguments advanced, 1 find that whether payments were made through account payee cheque or cash or there was any fraud or forgery are matters of evidence. Though it is seen that the loan was availed for constructing the house, whether completion certificate was produced for the amount availed as loan or not is also a matter to be decided on evidence. The contention now raised is only a defence which is to be established either in cross examination of the prosecution witness or through defence evidence. To reject the prosecution case at the threshold is not the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be sparingly exercised only to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of process or otherwise to secure the ends' of justice.