IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 764 of 2011() ---------------------- CC.156/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ................... PETITIONER / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------- ROHIT.J., S/O.LATE V.G.RAJENDRAN NAIR, GRA.246-KOTTRA LANE, GOWREESAPATTOM, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS / STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31. 2. SREEKUMAR.K., S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, SREE RAGAM, KARIAVATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 581. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAIBY PAUL. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.764 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner faces trial before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C.No.156 of 2009 for offences punishable under Secs.419 and 420 of the Penal Code. Peroorkada police registered Crime No.65 of 2008 on the complaint of the second respondent. He stated that his son, Sithin is a student of the U.K.G in St.Thomas School, Mukkola studying in the State Syllabus and while so, his wife, Sheeja had given `.25000/- to one Roy for getting admission in the same school for Sithin in the C.B.S.E syllabus. Roy had made the wife of second respondent believe that the amount is given to one Radhakrishnan for the said purpose. Wife of second respondent stated that she contacted Radhakrishnan over telephone and he admitted having received the amount. Neither the second respondent nor his wife had ever seen Radhakrishnan. Police investigated the case and chargesheeted petitioner for cheating the wife of second respondent by collecting the amount. It is contended by learned counsel that there is nothing to connect petitioner with Roy who is said to have received the amount from Crl.M.C.No.764 of 2011 -: 2 :- the wife of second respondent. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner is in any way involved in the incident. According to the learned counsel the date of incident is not stated and the allegations are inherently improbable. 2. In the complaint preferred by second respondent, the date of incident though not specifically stated, it is stated that it occurred in the year 2006. I bear in mind that crime was registered in 2008 and Annexure-B, final report was submitted in the year 2009. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 05.03.2009. There was no challenge to the final report for about two years. Not even when charge was framed against petitioner there was any challenge to that. Now when the case is about to be tried petitioner has approached this Court with a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am not inclined to think that at this stage interference is required. Petitioner can raise his defence before the trial court. This criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-