Kerala High Court
Somasundaram vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:74592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 265 OF 2025
CRIME NO.884/2011 OF Ernakulam Town North Police Station,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2025 IN CMP NO.4019/2024 IN CC
NO.196 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
SOMASUNDARAM
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O MANIKKAM CHETTIYAR, HOUSE NO. 45/1841-K, P J
ANTONY ROAD, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SMT.SEETHA S. SR.PP SRI.HRITWIK C.S SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 265 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:74592
"CR"
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.REV.PET NO. 265 OF 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order framing
charges against the petitioner. The petitioner and another
were charge-sheeted, alleging offences punishable under
Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short IPC), and also under Sections 13 and 17 of the
Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. It is a case arising from
Crime No.884/2011 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station.
2. The crux of the allegation in the charge sheet is
that the petitioner, with an intention to collect exorbitant
interest, without a license, conducted 'SARO Finance
Company' and collected cheques and stamp papers from the
customers. Originally, the case was charge sheeted under
Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958.
Subsequently, the police conducted further enquiries and
submitted a supplementary charge sheet alleging an offence
2025:KER:74592
under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner and another earlier
approached this Court to quash the proceedings, as Crl. M.C.
No.8883/2019. This Court, as per Annexure-II judgment,
allowed the petitioner to file a discharge petition in absentia.
The second accused in the case was already discharged, as
evidenced by the Annexure-I order. The petitioner was unable
to file a discharge petition because the charge had already
been framed at that stage. The petitioner is challenging the
order framing the charge. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. This Court perused the charge framed against the
petitioner by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ernakulam. It is a court charge. It is in printed format, with
the name of the accused and other details inserted by writing.
I am surprised to see such a charge framed by a court of law.
This is not the manner in which a charge is to be framed by a
court of law. It cannot be in a printed format. The charge
should be framed in writing as per Section 240(1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C)/Section 263(1)
2025:KER:74592
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS),
which deals with the framing of charge in the trial of warrant
cases instituted by a police report. Section 246(1)
Cr.P.C/269(1) BNSS, which deals with the framing of charge in
cases instituted otherwise than on police report, also says that
the charge should be in writing. It is true that a Form is
prescribed in Cr. P.C. about the charge. But the same cannot
be used as a printed format by the court. The court cannot
prepare a format of charge and fill the details of each case in
the vacant space of the format. I am of the considered opinion
that this impugned order is to be set aside. In this case, before
framing a fresh charge, the petitioner can be given an
opportunity to file a fresh discharge petition.
Therefore, this revision petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1) The order framing the charge against the petitioner,
dated 09.12.2019, is set aside.
2) The petitioner is free to file a discharge petition
before the jurisdictional court within three weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2025:KER:74592
3) If such a discharge petition is received, the learned
Magistrate will consider the same, without insisting on
the presence of the petitioner, and pass appropriate
orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within four months from the date of receipt of the
discharge petition.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 08.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 09.10.2025
Final Judgment 10.10.2025
uploaded
2025:KER:74592
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 265/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2025 IN CMP
Annexure II THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2024
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL MC NO
Annexure III A COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO 884/2011OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH
POLICE STATION
