IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4578 of 2010() ------------------------- CRIME NO.1893/2009 OF E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION - ON THE FILE OF THE JFMC, NO.1-ERNAKULAM PETITIONER /2ND ACCUSED --------------------------- MOHANDAS, AGED 60 YEARS, KUTTYIL HOUSE, CHERUKULANJI P.O., RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOHN K.DANIEL, 15121, NORFOLK LN DAVIE, FLORIDA 33331, U.S.A.(ADDRESS IN INDIA C/O.DR. JACOB DANIEL & ALEKUTTY JACOB 19/355, CATHEDRAL ROAD, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.4578 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th day of March 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1893 of 2009 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station for offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that the first accused made advertisement in the newspaper offering to arrange MBBS seat at SRM Medical College, Chennai, collected money from the de facto complainant but, cheated him. Petitioner, father of the first accused seeks to quash proceedings against him on the ground that the complaint (Annexure-1) submitted by the de facto complainant to the Superintendent of Police, NRI Cell, Thiruvananthapuram does not mention anything about petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that no investigation is being conducted Crl.M.C. No.4578 of 2010 -: 2 :- for the last two years. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner had moved for anticipatory bail which was rejected with direction to appear before the Investigating Officer but, he did not appear on time and hence investigation prolonged. First accused could not so far be arrested and further materials be collected by his interrogation. Investigation is almost completed, it is submitted, what remains is arrest of first accused and getting several materials in the matter. 3. I have gone through Annexure-1 complaint. There, petitioner is cited as the 2nd accused. It is true that there is no specific allegation in Annexure-1 complaint about the petitioner. But, the case was registered in the year 2009 and now investigation is progressing. Certainly, if investigation does not reveal any offence against petitioner the Investigating Officer has to file a report in that way. At this belated stage there is no reason to interfere with the Crl.M.C. No.4578 of 2010 -: 3 :- proceeding against petitioner. But, the Investigating Officer is directed to complete investigation as early as possible. With the above direction, this Crl.M.C. is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt