IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 107 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.1734/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... (CRIME NO.313/04 OF CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- K.HARIKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.R.KESAVA PILLAI, AYIKKARA MALAYIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIRAMBU P.O., MARAMON, THOTTAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SASI RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT.VANDANA S.KHANKARI, FINANCE MANAGER, AIR INDIA LTD., OLD AIR PORT, NEAR KURLA, KALEENA, BOMBAY - 400 071. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.107 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in C.C. No.1734 of 2004 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva for offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. That case arose on the final report submitted in Crime No.313 of 2004 of Chengamanadu police station. Case is that petitioner committed theft of gold ornaments of de facto complainant and thereby committed offence as alleged. As per the prosecution version the (alleged stolen) ornaments were seized from the person of petitioner as per a seizure mahazar. Petitioner of course, has a different case. He says that de facto complainant belonged to Bombay, he had contacts with her and they lived together as husband and wife for some time and while so, there was difference of opinion between them. From the year 2004 onwards they started living separately. It is while so, according to the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner states that later he got employment abroad. On account of his failure to CRL.M.C. No.107 of 2011 -: 2 :- appear in court proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against him. Petitioner seeks to quash the case against him and states that the case is highly improbable and false. It is also the case of petitioner that de facto complainant has already abandoned the case and gone to her native place. 2. It is revealed that ornaments belonging to the de facto complainant were allegedly seized from the person of petitioner. I have gone through the material produced before me (Annexures-A to C) Annexure-D onwards are produced to show close intimacy petitioner allegedly had with the de facto complainant. That in my view, has no bearing on the issue whether the proceeding is to be quashed. I do not find reason to interfere under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner has to face the trial. 3. It is submitted that since petitioner was abroad he could not appear in court and coercive steps have been taken against him. Petitioner seeks a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail. I am afraid, no such direction can be given to the learned Magistrate since grant of bail is the CRL.M.C. No.107 of 2011 -: 3 :- judicial function of the Magistrate. I make it clear that if any application for bail is presented learned Magistrate will consider the same as provided under law and pass appropriate orders. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv