The court upheld the framing of charges under Section 420 IPC, confirming that a prima facie case was established based on the evidence presented, emphasizing the role of the trial court at this stage.

O R D E R

The challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the charge framed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal in C.C.No.301/2016 against the revision petitioner/accused No.2.

2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the revision petitioner and her husband.

3. Respondent No.2 pleaded the following in the complaint:-

The accused, who are husband and wife, are known to the complainant for the last many years. On 20.12.2012, accused No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.4,19,000/- from the complainant/respondent No2. He had assured that he would repay the amount on or before 19.11.2013. On 22.11.2013, the complainant approached accused No.1 and demanded to repay the amount. Accused No.1 issued two cheques, one for Rs.2,00,000/- and another for Rs.2,19,000/- drawn on the Union Bank of India, Mallipuram Branch. While handing over the cheques, accused No.1 had informed the complainant that the above cheques were issued from the account maintained by him. The complainant presented the cheques for encashment. The cheques were dishonored with the endorsement ‘drawer’s signature differs’ and ‘insufÏcient fund’. Later, the complainant was informed by the Bank authorities that the cheques belonged to the revision petitioner/accused No.2. The complainant issued a notice to accused No.1 on 18.12.2013. Both the accused issued the cheques fully knowing that the cheques belonged to the revision petitioner/accused No.2. The accused, who are husband and wife, conspired together at the time of handing over the cheques. Even at the time of borrowing, the accused had the intention to cheat the complainant. Accused No.1 handed over the cheques that belonged to his wife, the revision petitioner, with her consent and signed the same by himself pretending that the cheques were issued from his account. The accused jointly committed cheating as defined in Section 420 of the IPC .

4. The learned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C.. The complainant gave evidence as PW1. He deposed in tune with the pleadings in the complaint. While giving evidence, the complainant stated that the accused together came and received the money and they had agreed to return the amount on 19.11.2013. He further stated that he approached the accused on 22.11.2013 and they agreed that they would return the amount in the evening. In the evening, both the accused came to the residence of the complainant and offered to issue cheques. The revision petitioner/accused No.2 handed over the cheques to the complainant. Accused No.1 afÏxed his signature in the cheques. The accused represented that the cheques belonged to accused No.1. Later the complainant came to know that the cheques were issued from the account maintained by the revision petitioner when he presented the same before the Bank. PWs 2 and 3 gave evidence in support of the financial transactions.

5. The learned Magistrate upon taking all the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant, framed charge against the accused. The said charge is under challenge in this revision petition.

6. The mandate of Section 245 Cr.P.C. is that upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244 , if the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if, unrebutted would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. As per Section 246 of the Cr.P.C., if, when such evidence has been taken, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitio