IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3193 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.224/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- C.A.KAJA HUSSAIN, S/O.CHEENAKKAPURAM VEETIL MUHAMMAD, AGED 41 YEARS, POOTHANNUR 9-MILE, EZHAKKAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. POOKUTTI, KUNNATHUKOICKAL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, AGED 39 YEARS, PULLIKUNNAKKU MURIYIL, PULLIKKUNNAKKU P.O., KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALEPPEY DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3193 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.224/2008 of J.F.C.M., Kayamkulam. The complaint was filed against three accused. The petitioner is the first accused therein. The allegation against this accused is that he approached the complainant and induced him to believe that he will arrange visa for going to gulf country and making such an inducement he received Rs.80,000/- from the complainant. According to the complainant, the said amount of Rs.80,000/- and his passport were handed over to the first accused on 15.10.2005 from the house of the complainant and that time, the petitioner herein agreed that visa would be arranged within 15 days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if at all it is only a breach of promise and so the offence under Sec.420 IPC will not be attracted. It is also argued that though Sec.468 IPC is also incorporated, there is nothing to Crl.M.C. No.3193 of 2011 -: 2 :- show that any forgery whatsoever was committed by the petitioner. It appears no specific allegation is seen made against this petitioner to attract Sec.468 IPC. But the submission that sufficient allegations are not there to attract Sec.420 IPC cannot be sustained. It is also important to note that it is a case where procedure for warrant case instituted on a complaint filed by the complainant (it is stated that the case was taken on file based on the private complaint filed by the complainant). If so, pre-charge evidence has to be recorded by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner can raise all his contentions before the trial court. Since further proceedings have to be continued in the matter, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt