IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4981 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.710/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ELSY, W/O. GEORGE KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR, PEECHI, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4981 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, along with the co-accused faced indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C. Altogether there were four accused persons. Accused 1,3 and 4 faced trial and they have been found not guilty and acquitted as per the judgment dated 31/1/2003 in C.C.No.284/1997. The case against the petitioner (A2) has been split up and refiled. It had been transferred to the list of long pending cases and later renumbered, it is submitted. 2. The petitioner, at this juncture, has come to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the prosecution against her. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the dictum of the Full Bench in Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)] the prosecution against the petitioner does not now have any legs to stand on. Going by the allegations and going by the inescapable inference flowing from Annexure 1 judgment, the prosecution against the petitioner is totally unjustified. The Crl.M.C.No. 4981/08 2 same does not deserve to continue, it is urged. The crux of the allegations in this case against the petitioner, a woman, is that accused 1,3 and 4 in India had induced the de facto complainant to part with amounts on the promise that employment will be secured for the de facto complainant abroad. They, after taking money from the de facto complainant, sent the de facto complainant to Muscat where the petitioner, a woman, was employed. The petitioner is said to have received the de facto complainant, allowed her to reside with her and had allegedly sent her to the place of employment where she was supposed to work. The crux of the allegations is that the employment offered to the de facto complainant was not the one that was promised to her and it is thus that the allegation is raised that the offence under Section 420 I.P.C has been committed against the de facto complainant. All the co-accused who stood trial have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted and in these circumstances the charge under Section 120(B) I.P.C cannot stand at all. 3. The only question is whether the surviving prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed or not. The Crl.M.C.No. 4981/08 3 learned Magistrate in Annexure 1 judgment has said thus about the alleged involvement and the case against the petitioner in paragraph 12. I extract paragraph 12 below: “Similarly, what is the role played by A2 in the present case is quite unknown. There is no deposition by the witnesses that A2 conspired with the other accused and with ulterior motive cheated PW1. Admittedly, A2 was at Mascat at the time of alleged transaction which took place in India. The fact that A2 received PW1 from the airport and brought her to her house and also to the canteen etc., only the stories spoken to by PW2 which has no independent corroboration. There is no allegation so as to attract the ingredients of 406 and 420 IPC as spoken to by PW1 or other witnesses against A2.” 4. The case diary has been placed before me for my perusal by the learned Public Prosecutor. I have gone through the case diary in detail. Except the allegation of conspiracy, there is absolutely nothing to implicate the petitioner. There is not even an allegation to show that she was knowingly concerned in the alleged deception of accused 1,3 and 4. Except that the petitioner/2nd accused received the de facto complainant at the Airport at Muscat, allowed her to stay with her and left her at the place of her employment, there is no allegation worth the name against the petitioner. I am satisfied that the continuance of the Crl.M.C.No. 4981/08 4 prosecution against the petitioner would be negation of justice and the surviving prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not co-operating with the police, that there are other cases against her and that she has been absconding for a long period of time. Notwithstanding these objections, considering the case against the petitioner on its merits and inherently I find the prosecution does not deserve to be permitted to continue. 6. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C.No.710/08 pending before the J.F.C.M Thrissur against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioner and her sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No. 4981/08 5 Crl.M.C.No. 4981/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008