IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2832 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.1651/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, VARKALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MAYADEVI, VENNIYIL VEEDU, CHERUKOLE, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. MR. R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2832 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 24th September 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.1651/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Varkala taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic Act. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 final report taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate contending that no witness had seen petitioner having sexual relationship with the first accused and she was not involved in any other case earlier and if the case is proceeded, it would affect her matrimonial life and she was not arrested as alleged but from Varkala Beach while she was in the company of first accused who was in love with the petitioner and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Contentions raised by the petitioner CRMC 2832/09 2 are all matters for evidence and based on the contentions the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner is to be compelled to appear before the trial court, it would affect her matrimonial life and in such circumstances, presence of the petitioner may not be insisted at the time of trial. 4. I find no reason to quash the proceedings as sought for. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate and seek discharge, if charge is not framed. She is also at liberty to file petition before the learned Magistrate to dispense with her presence except for the purpose of her identification at the time of evidence. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.