JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.143 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.) 1. The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.143 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that originally there was an agreement between the third respondent herein and the petitioner in the year November 2010 with regard to cutting of Karuvelam trees belonging to a local temple. The third respondent is said to have handed over a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- to the petitioner herein. The petitioner who was to fulfill certain obligations, received the said amount on behalf of the local temple. One was to obtain clearance from the HR&CE department for removal of Karuvelam trees. But the said permission did not materialise. That gave rise to the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. The local police mediated in the dispute and certain settlements were arrived at. The case of the petitioner is that suppressing those developments, the third respondent herein lodged a complaint before Bazaar police station, Ramanathapuram, leading to registration of Crime No.47 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. 3. The same was investigated and final report was filed. Cognizance of the aforesaid offences was also taken. The petitioner's counsel primarily contended that the impugned prosecution suffers from suppression of material facts. It is not as if the cause of action arose in the year 2014. The agreement between the parties dates back to November 2010. The issue between the parties was settled through auspices of the local police. Without disclosing the same, First Information Report was registered. He would also contend that the essential ingredients under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. are absent. 4. The contentions urged by the petitioner's counsel appear to be sound. But they primarily involve an investigation into several factual aspects. Even in the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed quite a few documents. In fact most of the documents pertain to the period prior to the registration of the First Information Report. 5. 4. The contentions urged by the petitioner's counsel appear to be sound. But they primarily involve an investigation into several factual aspects. Even in the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed quite a few documents. In fact most of the documents pertain to the period prior to the registration of the First Information Report. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in CDJ 2019 SC 855(Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and others V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others) held as follows:- “12. The plenary inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code; to prevent abuse of the process of the Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 13. The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 14. For interference under Section 482, three conditions are to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief. 15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate materials and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 16. The High Court should not, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the allegations are not sustainable, for this is the function of the trial Judge. This proposition finds support from the Judgment of this Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., and Ors. V. Mohd. Sharful Haque and Anr. This proposition finds support from the Judgment of this Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., and Ors. V. Mohd. Sharful Haque and Anr. MANU/SC/0932/2004: (2005) 1 SCC 122 . 17. The High Court may have an obligation to intervene under Section 482 of the Code in cases where manifest error has been committed by the Magistrate in issuing process despite the fact that the alleged acts did not at all constitute offences. Reference may be made to S.W.Palanitkar and Ors. V. State of Bihar and Anr. MANU/SC/0672/2001: (2002) 1 SCC 241 . However, it is important to remember that while exercising powers under this Section, the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision.” 6. Therefore, leaving open all the petitioner's contentions, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. Taking note of the overall facts and circumstances, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Court below stands dispensed with. 7. The learned trial Magistrate shall insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner only when it is absolutely necessary and imperative. The petitioner shall be called upon to appear in person before the trial Court at the time of answering the charges and at the time of examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of pronouncement of Judgment. On all other occasions, the petitioner can be represented through his counsel. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.