T PRABHAKARAN Vs. CHRISTUDAS S/O DANIEL; DAVIDSON S/O CHRISTUDAS; SATHYAKUMAR S/O RICHARD JAYSON AND STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution initiated under Sections 420, 468 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The petitioner represents a local Church. It is the case of the petitioner that the local Church had advanced money to purchase an item of property in the name of the local Y.M.C.A. It is the further allegation that the office bearers of the local Y.M.C.A. had executed a document to convey the title of the local Y.M.C.A. in the property to the national Y.M.C.A. The petitioner, in these circumstances, alleged that the office bearers of the local Y.M.C.A. who had executed the document had committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Investigation was conducted by the police. Final report was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The accused appeared before the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate proceeded to consider the question of framing charge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. The accused had produced documents - judgment and decree of a Civil Court - which showed that the civil court had accepted the case of the accused that the property belonged to the local Y.M.C.A. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order produced as Annex.E took the view that the charge against the accused is groundless and accordingly proceeded to pass Annex. E order. The petitioner challenged that order before the learned Sessions Judge in revision. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, copy of which is produced as Annex.F, took the view that revisional powers do not deserve to be invoked to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) The State has not challenged the order. The petitioner realises obviously that a second revision is not maintainable. That explains why the petitioner had entered this Court through the door of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contends that the concurrent orders of the courts below are not just and fair. The same warrants interference by invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court, it is contended.