IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 11 of 2009() ----------------------- CC.953/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1. ---------------------------- MAMMASRAYILLATH HAJARA, W/O. PANIKKAVEETTIL HAMSA,VENKITANGU AMSOM AND DESOM OF CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. SUJI, S/O.VADAKKATH UNNIKRISHNAN, THAIKKAD VILLAGE, NENMINI DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, A/W. CRMC NOS. 14 & 21 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.Nos.11, 14 & 21 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The common petitioner in all these three petitions and her son, who is the co-accused in one of the petitions, face indictment in three different prosecutions, all primarily under Section 420 I.P.C. and under the provisions of the Emigration Act. The allegation that was raised initially by the respective victim was only under Section 420 I.P.C. In the course of the investigation, parties have settled their disputes and reported that fact to the police. Thereupon the allegation under Section 420 I.P.C. was dropped and the final report was filed alleging the offence punishable under the provisions of the Emigration Act. 2. According to the petitioners the allegations are totally false. The petitioners are absolutely innocent. After taking cognizance the learned Magistrate has issued coercive processes against the petitioners. They apprehend imminent arrest. According to the petitioners they are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, but they apprehend Crl.M.C.Nos.11, 14 & 21 of 2009 2 that their applications for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate, it is apprehended, may not consider the applications taking into account the circumstance that the principal offence alleged has already been compounded. It is in these circumstances prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate. 3. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that any further direction deserves to be issued to the learned Magistrate. The petitioners must surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the common petitioner, a woman aged 58 years, is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail within a period of ten days. She may be permitted to surrender without the threat and risk of arrest and incarceration before she surrenders. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued. Crl.M.C.Nos.11, 14 & 21 of 2009 3 5. These Crl.M.Cs. are accordingly dismissed with specific direction that the coercive processes issued against the first petitioner shall not be executed till 12.1.2009. On or before that date, the first petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Such application for regular bail, if filed after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, must be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. All relevant circumstances, including the circumstance that the primary dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant has been settled, shall also be taken into account by the learned Magistrate. I make it further clear that the dismissal of these petitions will not in any way fetter the rights of the first petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate to claim premature termination of proceedings. (R. BASANT) HO Judge tm Crl.M.C.Nos.11, 14 & 21 of 2009 4