IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1696 of 2010 ---------------------------------- [CC.NO.1696/2003 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM, CRIME NO. 166/2002 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------ ABOOBACKER, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 40 YEARS, PALLIKALAKATH HOUSE, VALAPATTANAM DESOM, VALAPATTANAM VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KREALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, REP.BY SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.166/2002. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 1696 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 ORDER Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.166/2002 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code and Section 24(B) and 6 of the Emigration Act 1983. He seeks to quash the F.I.R and final report in the above case. 2. The case was already taken cognizance of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Erankulam and taken on file as C.C.No.1696/2003. The learned Magistrate has already framed charge. The petitioner did not pray for a discharge or was unable to obtain a discharge. With the framing of charge, the trial of the case has begun. Crl.M.C.No. 1696 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 24(B) and 6 of the Emigration Act cannot stand for want of sanction under Section 27 of the Emigration Act. He also submitted that the allegations in the complaint do not make out the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 4. As already mentioned, the petitioner did not plead for discharge at the appropriate stage nor was he able to secure a discharge. Hence, he will have to face trial and try to get an honourable acquittal. Regarding the question of sanction, since it is a matter which goes to the root of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to raise the same before the court below at any stage. The trial of the case was started way back in the year 2003. The court below shall endeavour to dispose of the case as early as possible and at any rate within four months of Crl.M.C.No. 1696 of 2010 : 3 : receipt of a copy of this order. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb Crl.M.C.No. 1696 of 2010 : 4 :