ORDER : 1. The prayers in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are as follows: “.............to quash Annexure A8 Complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in C.C. No. 1620 of 2015 and its further proceedings on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Thiruvananthapuram, Thiruvananthapuram District, in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri. J.R. Prem Navaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1 (State of Kerala) and Sri. M.R. Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2 (de facto complainant). In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, notice to contesting respondent No. 3 will stand dispensed with. 3. The case disclosed in the above criminal case is to the effect that the petitioners 1 to 5 and the 3rd respondent Company have been arrayed as accused 1 to 6 in the impugned Annexure A8 private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging offences punishable under Section 12(b), 420, 406, 506 and Section 354 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the above said offences has proceeded under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. and recorded the evidence of the prosecution by examining the complainant and two witnesses as PWs. 1 to 3. That the learned Magistrate has not permitted the petitioners to cross examine PWs. 1 to 3 who have given their evidence at Section 244 of Cr.P.C. stage and has passed the impugned Annexure A10 order dated 04.10.2018 in the said Calender Case C.C. No. 1620 of 2015, wherein it has been held that from evidence of prosecution witnesses and from the record produced, the learned Magistrate is satisfied that there is prima facie case for framing charge as against the accused persons for proceeding further and has then adjourned the case for framing and all the accused have been directed to appear before the said court the for the said purpose. It is after the issuance of impugned Annexure A10 order dated 04.10.2018, that the petitioners have filed instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case on 27.11.2018 with the aforementioned prayers. 4. It is common ground, that earlier after cognizance was taken in this case and issuance of summons, the petitioners have filed Crl. It is after the issuance of impugned Annexure A10 order dated 04.10.2018, that the petitioners have filed instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case on 27.11.2018 with the aforementioned prayers. 4. It is common ground, that earlier after cognizance was taken in this case and issuance of summons, the petitioners have filed Crl. M.C. No. 6107 of 2016 seeking quashment of the impugned complaint at Annexure A8 herein and had also raised a contention that another impugned criminal proceedings is also sought to be set in motion against the petitioners on the same allegations etc. This Court as per order dated 06.10.2016 had not allowed the said prayers of the petitioners and that reserved the right of the petitioners to challenge the proceedings at the appropriate stage. It is thereafter, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram has issued Annexure A10 proceedings dated 04.10.2018, whereby the petitioners had not been permitted to cross examine PWs. 1 to 3 who have tendered their evidence at the Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. stage and has proceeded to post the case for framing of charges. The issue as to whether the accused persons have the right to cross examine the prosecution witnesses at Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. stage is no longer res integra and is covered in favour of the petitioners as per the dictum laid down by the apex court in decision as in Sunil Mehta and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2013 (9) SCC 209 . In that case, the apex court has also placed reliance on certain other judgments of the apex court as in Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2009 (14) SCC 115 , Harinarayan G. Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2010 (11) SCC 520 etc. It would be profitable to refer to paragraph Nos. 14 to 23 of the decision of the apex court in the case in Sunil Mehta and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2013 (9) SCC 209 , which reads as follows: “14. We may also refer to Chapter X of the Evidence Act which deals with examination of witnesses. Section 137 appearing in that Chapter defines the expressions examination-in-chief, cross and reexamination while Section 138 stipulates the order of examinations and reads as under: “138. We may also refer to Chapter X of the Evidence Act which deals with examination of witnesses. Section 137 appearing in that Chapter defines the expressions examination-in-chief, cross and reexamination while Section 138 stipulates the order of examinations and reads as under: “138. Order of examinations - Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination- in-chief. Direction of re-examination - The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross- examination and if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in reexamination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.” 15. It is trite that evidence within the meaning of the Evidence Act and so also within the meaning of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the manner stipulated under Section 138 in the case of oral evidence. Documentary evidence would similarly be evidence only if the documents are proved in the manner recognised and provided for under the Evidence Act unless of course a statutory provision makes the document admissible as evidence without any formal proof thereof. 16. Suffice it to say that evidence referred to in Sections 244, 245 and 246 must, on a plain reading of the said provisions and the provisions of the Evidence Act, be admissible only if the same is produced and, in the case of documents, proved in accordance with the procedure established under the Evidence Act which includes the rights of the parties against whom this evidence is produced to cross-examine the witnesses concerned. 17. Secondly, because evidence under Chapter XIX (B) has to be recorded in the presence of the accused and if a right of cross-examination was not available to him, he would be no more than an idle spectator in the entire process. 17. Secondly, because evidence under Chapter XIX (B) has to be recorded in the presence of the accused and if a right of cross-examination was not available to him, he would be no more than an idle spectator in the entire process. The whole object underlying recording of evidence under Section 244 after the accused has appeared is to ensure that not only does the accused have the opportunity to hear the evidence adduced against him, but also to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses with a view to showing that the witness is either unreliable or that a statement made by him does not have any evidentiary value or that it does not incriminate him. Section 245 of the Code, as noticed earlier, empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused if, upon taking of all the evidence referred to in Section 244, he considers that no case against the accused has been made out which may warrant his conviction. Whether or not a case is made out against him, can be decided only when the accused is allowed to cross- examine the witnesses for otherwise he may not be in a position to demonstrate that no case is made out against him and thereby claim a discharge under Section 245 of the Code. It is elementary that the ultimate quest in any judicial determination is to arrive at the truth, which is not possible unless the deposition of witnesses goes through the fire of cross-examination. In a criminal case, using a statement of a witness at the trial, without affording to the accused an opportunity to cross-examine, is tantamount to condemning him unheard. Life and liberty of an individual recognised as the most valuable rights cannot be jeopardised leave alone taken away without conceding to the accused the right to question those deposing against him from the witness box. 18. Thirdly, because the right of cross-examination granted to an accused under Sections 244 to 246 even before framing of the charges does not, in the least, cause any prejudice to the complainant or result in any failure of justice, while denial of such a right is likely and indeed bound to prejudice the accused in his defence. 18. Thirdly, because the right of cross-examination granted to an accused under Sections 244 to 246 even before framing of the charges does not, in the least, cause any prejudice to the complainant or result in any failure of justice, while denial of such a right is likely and indeed bound to prejudice the accused in his defence. The fact that after the Court has found a case justifying framing of charges against the accused, the accused has a right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses under Section 246(4) does not necessarily mean that such a right cannot be conceded to the accused before the charges are framed or that the Parliament intended to take away any such right at the pre-charge stage. 19. We are supported in the view taken by us by the decision of this Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose (supra). That was a case where the trial Court had framed charges against the accused without the prosecution having any evidence whatsoever in terms of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. This Court held that the procedure adopted by the trial Court was not correct because the language of Section 246(1) Cr.P.C. itself sufficiently indicated that charges have to be framed against the accused on the basis of some evidence offered by the complainant at the stage of Section 244(1). This Court observed: “The language of the Section clearly suggests that it is on the basis of the evidence offered by the complainant at the stage of Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. that the charge is to be framed, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is any ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter. Therefore, ordinarily, when the evidence is offered under Section 244 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, the Magistrate has to consider the same and if he is convinced, the Magistrate can frame the charge.” 20. This Court further clarified that the expression “or at any previous stage of the case” appearing in Section 246(1) did not imply that a Magistrate can frame charges against an accused even before any evidence was led under Section 24. This Court approved the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Sambhaji Nagu Koli vs. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cri. This Court approved the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Sambhaji Nagu Koli vs. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cri. L.J. 390 (Bom), where the High Court has explained the purport of the expression “at any previous stage of the case.” The said expression, declared this Court, only meant that the Magistrate could frame a charge against the accused even before all the evidence which the prosecution proposed to adduce under Section 244(1) was recorded and nothing more. This Court observed: “44. In Section 246 Cr.P.C. also, the phraseology is “if, when such evidence has been taken” meaning thereby, a clear reference is made to Section 244 Cr.P.C. The Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that the phraseology would, at the most, mean that the Magistrate may prefer to frame a charge, even before all the evidence is completed. The Bombay High Court, after considering the phraseology, came to the conclusion that the typical clause did not permit the Magistrate to frame a charge, unless there was some evidence on record. For this, the Learned Single Judge in that matter relied on the ruling in Abdul Nabi vs. Gulam Murthuza Khan, 1968 Cri. L.J. 303 (AP).” 21. More importantly, this Court recognised the right of cross-examination as a salutary right to be exercised by the accused when witnesses are offered by the prosecution at the stage of Section 244(1) of the Code and observed: “51. The right of cross-examination is a very salutary right and the accused would have to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been offered at the stage of Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. The accused can show, by way of the cross-examination, that there is no justifiable ground against him for facing the trial and for that purpose, the prosecution would have to offer some evidence. While interpreting this Section, the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused in his losing an opportunity to show to the Court that he is not liable to face the trial on account of there being no evidence against him, cannot be ignored.” 22. While interpreting this Section, the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused in his losing an opportunity to show to the Court that he is not liable to face the trial on account of there being no evidence against him, cannot be ignored.” 22. In Harinarayan G. Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 520 , this Court reiterated the legal position stated in Ajoy Kumar Ghose (supra) and held that the right of an accused to cross-examine witnesses produced by the prosecution before framing of a charge against him was a valuable right. It was only through cross-examination that the accused could show to the Court that there was no need for a trial against him and that the denial of the right of cross-examination under Section 244 would amount to denial of an opportunity to the accused to show to the Magistrate that the allegations made against him were groundless and that there was no reason for framing a charge against him. The following passages are in this regard apposite: “18. This Court has already held that right to cross-examine the witnesses who are examined before framing of the charge is a very precious right because it is only by cross-examination that the accused can show to the Court that there is no need of a trial against him. It is to be seen that before framing of the charge under Section 246, the Magistrate has to form an opinion about there being ground for presuming that the accused had committed offence triable under the Chapter. If it is held that there is no right of cross-examination under Section 244, then the accused would have no opportunity to show to the Magistrate that the allegations are groundless and that there is no scope for framing a charge against him. xxx xxx xxx 20. Therefore, the situation is clear that under Section 244, Cr. P.C. the accused has a right to cross-examine the witnesses and in the matter of Section 319, Cr.P.C. when a new accused is summoned, he would have similar right to cross-examine the witness examined during the inquiry afresh. Again, the witnesses would have to be reheard and then there would be such a right. Merely presenting such witnesses for cross-examination would be of no consequence.” 23. Again, the witnesses would have to be reheard and then there would be such a right. Merely presenting such witnesses for cross-examination would be of no consequence.” 23. In the light of what we have said above, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court fell in palpable error in interfering with the order passed by the Revisional Court of Sessions Judge, Gandhi Nagar. The High Court was particularly in error in holding that the appellant had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or that he had not availed of the said opportunity when the witnesses were examined at the stage of proceedings under Chapter XV of the Code. The High Court, it is obvious, has failed to approach the issue from the correct perspective while passing the impugned order.” Though the petitioners have made a prayer for the quashment of impugned Annexure A8 complaint, the same need not be granted by this Court but it has been held that in the light of the above said dictum laid by the apex court in decisions as in Sunil Mehta's case (supra) that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate as per Annexure A10 order dated 04.10.2018, whereby the case is now posting for consideration of framing of charges, without permitting the petitioners to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who have tendered evidence at Section 244 of Cr.P.C. stage is illegal and ultra-vires and is liable to be interdicted. As the petitioners being accused persons have the right to seek cross-examination of the prosecution witness who have tendered evidence in this case at Section 244 of Cr.P.C. stage. It is only after such cross-examination of the prosecution witness who have tendered evidence in this case, the learned Magistrate will have to hear both sides and then take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, as to whether or not the case should be proceeded further including that for framing of charge. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure A10 order dated 04.10.2018 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No. 1620 of 2015 shall stand quashed and set aside. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure A10 order dated 04.10.2018 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No. 1620 of 2015 shall stand quashed and set aside. The learned Magistrate will permit the petitioners and other accused concerned to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who have tendered at Section 244 of Cr.P.C. stage and thereafter should hear both sides and then take an appropriate decision as to whether or not the matter is to be proceeded further. 6. Taking note of the dictum laid down by the apex court in decisions as in Sunil Mehta and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2013 (9) SCC 209 , etc. and the other issue raised by the petitioners regarding the legality and correctness of Annexure A11 FIR in Crime No. 1111 of 2015 of Thiruvananthapuram Museum Police Station on the ground that it is broadly the same set of allegations as in Annexure A8 private complaint etc. this Court need not get into such aspects, as no prayer is made in the above said Criminal M.C. However, Sri. M.R. Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent herein would submit that the said plea of the petitioners may not be tenable in the light of the order dated 06.10.2016 rendered by this Court in Criminal M.C. No. 6107 of 2016. However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioners have any legally justiciable grievances in the matter in Annexure A11 Crime No. 1111 of 2015 Thiruvananthapuram Museum Police Station, it is for the petitioners to work out their remedies in the manner known to law after the submission of the final report in that case. 7. The petitioners will produce certified copy of the judgment before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, who is dealing with C.C. No. 1620 of 2015, for necessary information and further action. 8. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal M.C. Will stand disposed of.