IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 107 of 2011()
1. K.HARIKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SMT.VANDANA S.KHANKARI,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SASI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :13/01/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Crl. M.C. No.107 of 2011
====================================
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
Petitioner is accused in C.C. No.1734 of 2004 of the court
of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva for offence
punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. That case
arose on the final report submitted in Crime No.313 of 2004 of
Chengamanadu police station. Case is that petitioner committed
theft of gold ornaments of de facto complainant and thereby
committed offence as alleged. As per the prosecution version the
(alleged stolen) ornaments were seized from the person of
petitioner as per a seizure mahazar. Petitioner of course, has a
different case. He says that de facto complainant belonged to
Bombay, he had contacts with her and they lived together as
husband and wife for some time and while so, there was difference
of opinion between them. From the year 2004 onwards they
started living separately. It is while so, according to the petitioner
that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner states
that later he got employment abroad. On account of his failure to
CRL.M.C. No.107 of 2011
-: 2 :-
appear in court proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against him. Petitioner
seeks to quash the case against him and states that the case is
highly improbable and false. It is also the case of petitioner that
de facto complainant has already abandoned the case and gone
to her native place.
2. It is revealed that ornaments belonging to the de
facto complainant were allegedly seized from the person of
petitioner. I have gone through the material produced before me
(Annexures-A to C) Annexure-D onwards are produced to show
close intimacy petitioner allegedly had with the de facto
complainant. That in my view, has no bearing on the issue
whether the proceeding is to be quashed. I do not find reason
to interfere under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner has to face
the trial.
3. It is submitted that since petitioner was abroad he
could not appear in court and coercive steps have been taken
against him. Petitioner seeks a direction to the learned
Magistrate to release him on bail. I am afraid, no such direction
can be given to the learned Magistrate since grant of bail is the
CRL.M.C. No.107 of 2011
-: 3 :-
judicial function of the Magistrate. I make it clear that if any
application for bail is presented learned Magistrate will consider
the same as provided under law and pass appropriate orders.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv