IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2360 of 2009() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.345/2009 OF GHANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM) ........ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- JOSEPH K.A., S/O.C.V.CHACKO, AGED 49 YEARS, MATTATHI HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2360 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused in Crime No.345/2009 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A FIR contending that on the allegations in Annexure-A FIR and F.I. Statement of second respondent, the defacto complainant, an offence under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even if the allegations in the F.I. Statement of the defacto complainant are believed, she was taken in the car not by any deceitful means and therefore, there is no abduction as provided under Section 362 of Indian Penal Code and without any abduction, an offence CRMC 2360/09 2 under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted and therefore, Annexure-A FIR is to be quashed. 4. Annexure-A FIR shows that defacto complainant was a student of B.Sc. Nursing, who could not continue the course and later, wanted a re-admission and approached M.G. Universtiy for getting re-admission. As per the statement, she was informed that the matter is being attended to by the petitioner, who is working in ACA4 Section and she had been to that Section several times and on 17.6.2009, when she met the petitioner, he informed her that it will be difficult to give re-admission and re-admission is possible if she is prepared to oblige and petitioner had given his cell phone number. Thereafter, on the next day, she called petitioner in that cell phone and then petitioner asked her what he will get if re-admission is arranged and when she expressed her willingness to pay money, petitioner disclosed that for money he CRMC 2360/09 3 will not do anything and asked her to see him on the next day. According to the defacto complainant, she contacted her husband, who is at Thiruvananthapuram and with his permission she went to the University on the morning of 19.6.2009 and by 10 a.m. she contacted the petitioner over cell phone. Then she was informed that she need not meet him at the office and instead, asked her to wait on the way. Thereafter, petitioner came there in a car and asked her to get into the car. She was reluctant. Then under the pretext that he has to talk something to her and there is nothing to fear, she was persuaded to accompany him in that car and from the car he wanted her to agree for sexual intercourse and when she expressed her unwillingness, she was asked to get out of the car. Then she contacted her husband and first information was lodged. 5. If the allegations in the statement are true, it is a matter of serious nature, which, CRMC 2360/09 4 definitely, warrants a proper investigation. I cannot agree with the submission that persuading a woman, who approached the petitioner for the purpose of getting the papers for re-admission to the course set right, to accompany him under the guise that something is to be told to her and then inducing her to have sexual intercourse will not attract an offence under Section 362 or 366 of Indian Penal Code as canvassed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, Annexure-A FIR cannot be quashed as sought for. Petition is dismissed. 13th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv