Nazeer vs State Of Kerala & Anr.

C.S.Dias, J.

The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No.1798 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-I, Aluva (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), which originates from Crime No. 823 of 2009, registered by the Aluva East Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner and the second accused filed an application before the Trial Court for discharge contending that the materials collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of the offences alleged against them. By Annexure A2 order, the Trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by Annexure A2 order, the petitioner preferred Crl. R.P. No.21 of 2024 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam (for short, ‘Revisional Court’). By the impugned Annexure A1 order, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition. It is assailing the correctness and legality of the said order that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case (‘petition’, for brevity) is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court are erroneous, irrational and improper, warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’, for short). It is argued that both Courts have proceeded on the erroneous premise that the petitioner had forged the registration particulars of the vehicle in question, notwithstanding the admitted absence of any forensic examination. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of expert evidence, the prosecution case is untenable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vandana v. State of Maharashtra [2025 KHC Online 7499], and it is contended that the continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the law. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside.

The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes the petition. He submits that both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have meticulously evaluated the materials collected during the investigation and have concurrently arrived at a prima facie conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. It is contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

The gravamen of the prosecution case is that, before 19.03.2009, the accused persons committed theft of a Scorpio motor car and substituted the engine and chassis number of the vehicle with the registration number of a motorcycle owned by CW-10 bearing number KL-16 B-7301. The accused persons, after fabricating the registration documents, fraudulently handed over the documents to the Regional Transport Office, Aluva (‘RTO’, for short) representing that the documents were genuine and succeeded in registering the vehicle with the forged documents.

The Trial Court, by Annexure A2 order, dismissed the discharge application by observing thus:

Aggrieved by Annexure A2 order, the petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No.21 of 2024 before the Revisional Court.

The Revisional Court, after examining the materials on record, noticed that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the RTO, Aluva, revealed that the vehicle was registered in the name of the second accused. However, the registration certificate did not bear either the official seal or the dealer's address. It was also revealed that the car's registration number, KL-16-B-7301, was actually that of a motorcycle belonging to CW-10, registered with the RTO, Nedumangad. It was found that the car was being used with a false registration number. It was initially registered in the name of the first accused, and the registration was later transferred to the second accused, the first accused's brother. In light of the aforesaid materials, the Revisional Court held that the order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, irrationality or impropriety. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

It is trite that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to the erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’), cannot ordinarily be invoked as a substitute for a second revision petition, which is expressly barred by law. It is well settled that the inherent power of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, inter alia, when there is a palpable abuse of the process of the Court, where the impugned order is patently illegal and shocking the conscience of the Court or when there is a gross miscarriage of justice.

In Rajathi v. C. Ganesan [(1999) 6 SCC 326] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power under S.482 CrPC shall not be utilised as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision is barred under S.397(3) CrPC, the complainant or the accused cannot take recourse to revision before the High Court under S.397(1) CrPC, as it is barred under S.397(3) Cr.P.C.

In State v. Navjot Sandhu [(2003) 6 SCC 641], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, held as under:

The sheet anchor of the petitioner’s contention is that the absence of forensic evidence to establish the alleged forgery of the engine number, chassis number and registration particulars of the vehicle is fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be discharged. The absence of expert evidence is essentially a matter touching upon the appreciation of evidence and the ultimate merits of the prosecution case. Whether the prosecution succeeds in proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of scientific or expert evidence is a question that can be determined only after the evidence is adduced and tested during trial. Such a contention cannot constitute a valid ground for discharge at the threshold.

The jurisdiction of a Court while considering an application for discharge is limited. The Court is not expected to embark upon a meticulous review of the materials on record or to adjudicate their admissibility, reliability, or probative value. The enquiry is confined to ascertaining whether the materials collected during the investigation, if accepted at their face value, disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.

A scrutiny of the impugned orders reveals that both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have undertaken an objective consideration of the materials on record. The prima facie findings of the two Courts are based on the statements of witnesses, the records secured during the investigation, and the circumstances emerging therefrom, and have concurrently held that the charges have to be framed.

The petitioner’s endeavour to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS as a substitute for a second revision is untenable. The statutory embargo against a second revision cannot be circumvented by merely styling the proceedings as one under Section 528 BNSS. The petitioner has failed to establish that the impugned order is vitiated by patent illegality or manifest perversity.

Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the facts, materials on record, the law on the point and the rival submissions, I am unable to discern any exceptional circumstance warranting the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. The petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. Considering the fact that the crime was registered in 2009, I direct the Trial Court to make an earnest effort to dispose of C.C. No.1798 of 2015 in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Trial Court.

Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/10/2025 IN CRL RP 24/2024 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT VII, ERNAKULAM

Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER 12/02/2024 IN CMP 3207/2022 IN CC 1798/2015 OF JFCM I ALUVA