IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 289 of 2007()
1. BABU, S/O.CHAMUNNY, AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. PRAKASAN, S/O.PONNUMANI, AGED 36 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :06/02/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 289 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused in a prosecution and they face
allegations under Sections 420 and 506 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Cognizance
has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police
after due investigation. Investigation commenced with a private
complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the learned
Magistrate, which was referred to the police under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that
they induced the complainant and his brother to part with an amount
of Rs.80,000/- each promising to make an employment VISA
available to the complainant. VISA was not made available nor was
the amount returned. When return of the amount was claimed, the
complainant and his brother were allegedly intimidated. Thus the
crux of the allegations is that false representations were made to the
complainant and his brother to induce them to part with an amount of
Rs. 80,000/-
Crl.M.C.No. 289 of 2007 2
with no intention whatsoever to make such VISA available to them. When
the amount was demanded, they were intimidated also.
3. The petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the prosecution
initiated against them. What is the reason? The only contention is that the
allegations raised are false. At this stage exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot certainly be expected to resolve the
disputed questions of fact. It cannot be said that the allegations, if accepted,
do not constitute any criminal offence.
4. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the
acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected.
Suffice it to say that in a case like the instant one, the petitioners must
appear before the learned Magistrate and claim discharge/acquittal. If they
claim discharge, the learned Magistrate must certainly consider such claim
and take appropriate decision under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
are both employed abroad and great difficulties and inconvenience will
have to be endured if their personal presence is insisted. It will not be
Crl.M.C.No. 289 of 2007 3
possible for them to appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of
four months. The petitioners can appear before the learned Magistrate
through their counsel and make this submission. The learned Magistrate
must pass appropriate orders on such application. The mere fact that a
warrant is pending cannot operate as a valid reason for the learned
Magistrate not to consider such application.
6. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed with the above observations.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
HO
tm