Kerala High Court
Ragesh E.H vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2026
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2026:KER:9254
Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1313 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2024 IN CRMP
225/2024 IN SC NO.595 OF 2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL
COURT, KODUNGALLUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 RAGESH E.H .,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O. HARSHAN RESIDING AT ERASSERY HOUSE, UMA
MAHESWARA TEMPLE ROAD, ANJAMPARATHI DESAM,
PANANGAD P.O, SREE NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506
2 RAJEEV E.H.,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. HARSHAN RESIDING AT ERASSERY HOUSE, UMA
MAHESWARA TEMPLE ROAD, ANJAMPARATHI DESAM,
PANANGAD P.O, SREE NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506
3 HARSHAN E.S.,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. SUBRAHMANYAN RESIDING AT ERASSERY HOUSE,
UMA MAHESWARA TEMPLE ROAD, ANJAMPARATHI DESAM,
PANANGAD P.O, SREE NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AJEESH S.BRITE
SHRI.FRANCIS ASSISI
SMT.DARSANA
SMT.SREELAKSHMI RAMACHANDRAN
2026:KER:9254
Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 2
SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN
SMT.E.G.AMBILY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV
SRI. N R SANGEETHA RAJ PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9254
Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 3
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.1313 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026
ORDER
The challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order dated 02.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.225 of 2024 in S.C.No.595 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court (Fast Track), Kodungallur. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489 C and 489 D of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that, on the basis of reliable information received by the Station House Officer, Mathilakam, a search was conducted on 22.06.2017 at the residence of accused No. 5. On search, the police seized articles and instruments including computer, counterfeit notes and partly printed notes. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the sons of accused No.5 were also present at the time of search. When the seized notes were examined by an expert, it was found that the currency notes were fake and counterfeit.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the notes 2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 4 allegedly seized were only photocopies and the prosecution failed to produce the original notes. The petitioners filed an application seeking discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application seeking discharge.
4. Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with discharge and framing of charge.
5. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when "the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless."
6. The primary consideration at the stage of framing charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case. The probative value of the materials on record is not to be gone into at this stage.
7. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [(2008) 2 SCC 561] while considering the nature of evaluation to be made by the Court at the stage of framing of charge held thus:-
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the 2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 5 existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the Accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the Accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
8. In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659], while dealing with the question of framing charge or discharge the Apex Court held thus:-
"32...if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the Accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the Accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
9. In State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [(2000) 6 SCC 338] the Apex Court held thus:-
"7. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the Accused."
10. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2013) 11 SCC 476], the Apex Court observed that while framing charges the Court is 2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 6 required to evaluate the materials and documents on record to decide whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It was further held that the Court cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations, contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses at the stage of discharge.
11. Section 239 envisages a careful and objective consideration of the question whether the charge against the Accused is groundless or whether there is ground for presuming that he has committed an offence. What Section 239 prescribes is not, therefore, an empty or routine formality. It is a valuable provision to the advantage of the accused, and its breach is not permissible under the law. But if the Judge, upon considering the record, including the examination, if any, and the hearing, is of the opinion that there is "ground for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence triable under the chapter, he is required by Section 240 to frame in writing a charge against the Accused. The order for the framing of the charge is also not an empty or routine formality. It is of a far-reaching 2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 7 nature, and it amounts to a decision that the accused is not entitled to discharge under Section 239, that there is, on the other hand, ground for presuming that he has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX and that he should be called upon to plead guilty to it and be convicted and sentenced on that plea, or face the trial. (See: V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI (AIR 1980 SC 962)."
12. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja [(AIR 1980 SC 52)] the Apex Court stated thus:-
"At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
13. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R.Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515 the Apex Court held thus:-
"25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on 2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 8 its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709), adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29)
29. ... At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the Accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the Accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the Accused has committed the law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
14. In State through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R. Soundirarasu and Ors. (AIR 2022 SC 4218) the Apex Court while dealing with the scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C. held thus:-
"61. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that if the Magistrate considers the charge against the Accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the Accused. The word 'groundless', in our opinion, means that there must be no ground for presuming that the Accused has committed the offence. The word 'groundless' used in Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means that the materials placed before the Court do not make out or are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the Accused. .........................
73. This would not be the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, nor for sifting the materials placed by the prosecution- the exercise at this stage is to be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the Accused can be said to be "groundless".
2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 9
74. The word "ground" according to the Black's Law Dictionary connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean the basis for charging the Accused or foundation for the admissibility of evidence. Seen in the context, the word "groundless" would connote no basis or foundation in evidence. The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever."
15. Therefore, the obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when the Magistrate/Special Judge considers the charge against the accused to be groundless that is, there is no legal evidence or when the facts are such that no offence is made out at all and no detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken.
16. The prosecution case reveals that on 22.06.2017, a search was conducted at the residence of the petitioners, and a seizure mahazar was prepared evidencing the search. During the search, counterfeit notes were seized from the house of the petitioners. The challenge of the petitioners is that the search is illegal. It is profitable to extract the 2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 10 relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus:-
"In this case the prosecution records reveal that the search was conducted in the house of the petitioners on 22.06.2017. There is seizure Mahazar produced from the side of the prosecution evidencing the search. The specific case of the prosecution is that the evidence collected from the house of the petitioners indicate their involvement in the case. The contention raised by the learned defence counsel is that the search is illegal and that only photocopies of the counterfeit notes alone were produced. In my view, the contentions raised by the learned defence counsel appears to be incorrect. The illegality in conducting the search in this case is to be considered during trial and cannot be taken as a ground for discharging the accused. As per the search list produced by the prosecution it can be seen that original counterfeit notes were seen seized from the house of the petitioners and also A4 sheet bond papers etc. In the light of the above discussion I am of the view that evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to indicate that the petitioners have involved in commission of the alleged offences and the same is sufficient for framing charge against the petitioners. The question regarding the legality of search conducted by the Police and the production of photocopies of counterfeit notes etc. can be considered during trial. The petitioners in my view have failed to establish valid grounds for getting a discharge."
17. On a perusal of the materials placed before the Court, this Court is of the view that there are prima facie materials disclosing the ingredients of the offences alleged. There is nothing to show that the charges levelled against the petitioners are groundless.
18. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly 2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 11 unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. {Vide: Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123], Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr [(2001) 9 SCC 631)] and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299)]}.
2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 12
19. In Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299)] the Apex Court held that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of rare cases only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction.
20. This Court is of the view that the order impugned is not affected with any patent error of jurisdiction.
All the challenges raised in this Revision Petition therefore fail. It is made clear that I have not made any observation on the merits of the prosecution case. The observations made in this order are only for ascertaining whether the charges levelled are groundless or not. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions during trial.
The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU JUDGE VPK 2026:KER:9254 Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2025 13 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 1313 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 FREE COPY OF ORDER PASS BY THE HON'BLE SPECIAL JUDGE, FASTRACK SPECIAL COURT KODUNGALLUR IN CR.M.P NO. 225/2024 IN S.C. NO.595/2021 DATED 02.11.2024