IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 233 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.310/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- VAHEEDA NOUSHAD, TC 16/386, EDAPAZHANJI, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.233 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner a widow who is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.310/2006 on the file of J.F.C.M- III, Thiruvananthapuram for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC, seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.310/2006 initiated on the basis of Annexure A final report. 2. According to the petitioner, she was only working as a cashier in Lavanya Tours and Travels, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram during 2004 and she was only obeying the instructions of the 1st accused- Manager who was engaged in the business of arranging visas to his customers. The petitioner would have it that except issuing receipts to the customers there is nothing to show that she had any intention to deceive anybody. She was merely discharging her duties as cashier . 3. The learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the case after getting instructions, submitted that there are circumstances indicating that the petitioner was receiving money from the customers with the full knowledge that they were being Crl.M.C.No.233 of 2008 2 deceived. 4. It is too early to consider whether the petitioner was merely discharging her duties as cashier and merely obeying the instructions of the 1st accused- Manager and that there was no mens rea in the conduct of the petitioner employed as cashier. The complicity of the petitioner and the extent of role played by her are matters for trial. On the materials before Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the 2nd accused in the case. No doubt, mere allegation does not amount to proof of the offence. The offence will have to be proved during trial to show that the petitioner committed the alleged offences. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. Communicate this order to the trial court. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj