IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3896 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CC.150/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10 ------------------------------------------- RETTY ANTONY, W/O.VARGHESE SEBASTIAN, KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE,VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. NOW RESIDING IN U.S.A. BY ADV. MR.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, H. NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3896 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 15th December 2009 O R D E R Petitioner, the tenth accused in C.C.150/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the final report and the further proceedings as against the petitioner. By Annexure-C judgment dated 13/10/2008 out of the 16 accused, except A1, A4, A6, A8, A10, A11 and A13, others were acquitted and the case as against accused 1,4,6,10 and 3 were split up and re-filed as C.C.150/2008. Case as against 11th accused was quashed by this court by Annexure-D order in Crl.M.C.2436/2005 holding that case as Crmc 3896/09 2 against 11th accused is only that he committed an offences under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and offence under Section 379 does not appear to have been attracted in view of the fact that inter net account is not a movable property and as there is no allegation that first accused entrusted the inter net account with 11th accused, after disclosing it to him that it was the account of Kendriya vidhayalaya and even if ,evidence is adduced there is no sufficient materials to convict 11th accused and continuation of the proceedings in such circumstances would only be an abuse of process of the court. Case of the petitioner is that just like 11th accused the only allegation against the petitioner is that she committed offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. When the similar case Crmc 3896/09 3 as against 11th accused was quashed, same ground applies to the case against the petitioner also. Hence it is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Prosecution case is that first accused is a service engineer who was deputed to Kendriya Vidhyalaya and he obtained the password to open the inter net account. Later he revealed it to the second accused, who in turn revealed it to all the remaining accused and they in turn used the inter net account of Kendriya Vidyalaya by opening it with the aid of the password so obtained, and thereby caused loss of Rs.5,000/- to the Kendriya Vidhyalaya. Case as against petitioner is that making use of the password revealed to Crmc 3896/09 4 her, she had wrongfully opened the inter net account and used it and thereby committed the offence. When the very same case against accused No.11 which is similar to the case against the petitioner, she cannot be convicted even if she is tried when this court has already found under Annexure-D order that even if, 11th accused is tried, he cannot be convicted. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against petitioner is only an abuse of process of the court. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.150/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad as against the petitioner is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.