IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4879 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.206/2008 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJINI, W/O. KURUVILLA VARGHESE KOCHUPURAKKAL VEEDU, PERINGARA MURI PERINGARA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4879 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, a woman, is the 2nd accused in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 I.P.C. Her husband is the 1st accused. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, fraudulently induced the de facto complainant to part with money on the promise of lucrative interest. The crux of the allegations is that such promises were made without any serious intention to perform the promise; but only to fraudulently induce the victim to part with money. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner contends that the allegations, even if accepted in toto, do reveal only the failure to discharge a civil liability. The allegation raised can at best reveal only a claim under the civil law and, at any rate, allegations of cheating under Section 420 I.P.C are not justified at all. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking Crl.M.C.No. 4879/08 2 instructions, submits that the petitioner's husband has already been arrested on 27/8/2008. Investigation reveals that both the accused persons are engaging themselves in such an activity of defrauding not only the de facto complainant; but many others. Large amounts have thus been collected by the accused persons fraudulently inducing gullible members of the public to part with money in favour of the accused persons with no serious intention of discharging the liability. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, at any rate, there is no reason to interfere with the investigation which has already commenced. The mere fact that civil liability is accepted, may not be reckoned at this stage as sufficient to direct discontinuance of the investigation for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor. I find merit in the submission. At the moment, it is not necessary for me to delve deeper into the disputed question. Suffice it to say that I find merit in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation need not be impeded at this stage and the Crl.M.C.No. 4879/08 3 investigating officer deserves to be granted reasonable further time to complete the investigation and take a specific stand. 4. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any authentic opinion on merits about the culpability of the petitioner and the co-accused. The dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail or regular bail. Needless to say, the application of the petitioner for regular bail after she surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No. 4879/08 4 Crl.M.C.No. 4879/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008