IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2474 of 2006() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.60/2006 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION ........ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- RENJITH, S/O.SUKUMARAN, SREERENJ VEEDU, NEAR LOARD MOUNT SCHOOL, KANAKODE, VEMBAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.S.RAJEEV MR.T.K.SHAIJ RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. (CRIME NO.60/206 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.APPL. NO.4499/2006 IN CRL. M.C. N.2474/2006 Dismissed 13.02.2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 2474 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed to quash Annexure II Final Report as C.P. 108/06 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram as it is an abuse of process of court. The petitioner before this court is accused of offence under Section 366 A of the IPC. The defacto complainant was aged 15 ½ years at the time of the incident. The case is that while she had gone for a tuition she was taken away by one Ranjith the petitioner herein representing to her that he will marry her. So she left with him on back of his motorcycle and they wanted to go to the house of the uncle of the petitioner. But they were not permitted to stay there and thereafter they went to the house of the petitioner and so many other places. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvases before me that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Section 366 A of the IPC is not attracted in this case and therefore the proceedings has to be quashed. Crl.M.C. 2474/2006 -2- 2. Section 366 A deals with the procuration of minor girl which reads as follows: “Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine” So in order to attract this offence the girl must be under the age of 18 years and she had been induced to go away from place with intend or that girl knowing that she will be forced or seduced to do illegal intercourse with another person. Now the statement relied under Section 161 of the Crl.P.C would give a picture that the girl was made to believe that she will be married by this person and there after she had boarded into motorbike and gone to different places with him when the entry was refused by the uncle. It is too early to say that there are absolutely no materials at all so as to quash the proceedings. More particulars Crl.M.C. 2474/2006 -3- and more details will be available at the time of framing a charge under Section 227 of the Crl.P.C and law does not prevent the petitioner from praying for a discharge when concrete materials are made available before the court by anybody. Even under Section 227 there is a prohibition for considering extraneous documents at that stage. Therefore I cannot hold now at this stage that the case cannot be proceeded at all. When it is so it is not possible to interfere under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C and quash the proceedings. I make it very clear that the observations made by me in this order are only for the purpose of considering the procedure to quash and it may not be taken as a guideline or binding when the matter reaches the other stage. With these observations Crl.M.C is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm