IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1850 of 2006 ---------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 800/05 OF THE VAIKOM POLICE STATION) .......... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- RASHEEDA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, KARIKKAL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA.P.O, VALLAKOM, VAIKOM. BY ADVS. MR.P.SANJAY, MR.A.PARVATHI MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY C.I. OF POLICE, VAIKOM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MONSE VADAKKEDOM, VADAKKEDOM HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA.P.O, VALLAKOM, VAIKOM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P. RAVINDRA BABU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO. 1850/2006-A: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO. 3605/2006 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1850/2006-A DISMISSED 23/03/2009. SD/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1850 of 2006 - A ----------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is arrayed as the accused in Crime No.800/2005 of Vaikom Police Station. After the completion of the investigation, the investigating officer has submitted a final report before the trial court. The petitioner approached this Court contending that she is an unemployed girl absolutely unconnected with the offence alleged against her and that there are absolutely no evidence to connect her with the alleged offence. In these circumstances, she seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.167/2006 arising from crime No.800/2005 of the Vaikon Police Station, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom. 2. The petitioner contends that she had intermittently worked in a STD booth belonging to one Vince Vadakkedom and it is his father Sri.Monse Vadakkedom who owns the concerned video library and the entire building wherein the said STD booth and the said video library are functioning. She further contends that she had never been engaged in the video library and has Crl.M.C.No.1850 of 2006 - A 2 nothing to do with the running of the said video library. According to her, she was not aware of the existence of the said case until she received a notice from the Judicial first Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom. It was then only she came to know that she was implicated as an accused in that case. It is in the said circumstances that she approached this court with a prayer for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.167/2006 of the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay invited my attention to the first information report and other statements of the witnesses to bring home the point that except the statement given by the police constable, there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the running of video library from where certain cassettes were allegedly taken into custody. My attention was also invited to Annexure-5 which is an affidavit filed by one Sri.Monse Vadakkedom who is the father of Sri. Vince Vadakkedom who runs the STD booth wherein the petitioner had worked. In Annexure-5, it is true that the said Monse Vadakkedon categorically states that the said shops are owned by him and he is running them directly. When the above case was Crl.M.C.No.1850 of 2006 - A 3 taken up for consideration, it was brought to my notice that another affidavit was also filed by Sri.Monse Vadakkedom which is marked as Annexure-6 in the Crl.M.C. I do not propose to examine veracity or validity of the said documents, in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He submittd that it will be suffice if the petitioner is given an opportunity to raise the plea of discharge at the appropriate stage. I think that it is a fair submission. Accordingly, the above Crl.M.C. is disposed of as follows: The petitioner will be at liberty to raise the plea of discharge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom at the appropriate stage and as and when it is raised, the court below shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of one month thereafter, before proceeding further with the case. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. bkn/-