IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CC.NO. 305/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE),ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- PRASEEDA.S, AGED 31 YRS., D/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KRISHNA VIHAR, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN SRI.K.S.SREEKUMAR (AROOKUTTY) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1360 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.257 of 2008 of Mararikulam Police Station and C.C. No.305 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Alappuzha for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case arose from Annexure-A1, complaint preferred by the de facto complainant. He stated that the first accused executed an agreement for sale in his favour for transfer of property for `10,60,000/- and received Rupee Nine lakhs. It is the case of the de facto complainant that at the time the first accused received the last installment of Rupees Three lakhs, petitioner also made an endorsement on the agreement requesting time for compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and thereafter petitioner and accused 1 and 3 colluded and executed the agreement in favour of the third accused and thus cheated the de facto complainant. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is no allegation against petitioner making her liable for punishment under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also CRL.M.C. No.1360 of 2011 -: 2 :- contended that as per statement made by the de facto complainant, signature of petitioner was obtained on the back of Annexure-A3, agreement after the alleged payment of Rupees Three lakhs to the first accused. 2. The de facto complainant is not made a party to this proceeding. It is open to the petitioner to plead discharge before the learned Magistrate. There is no reason why this Court should interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to plead discharge in absentia before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Alappuzha, appearing through counsel. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the contentions raised by the petitioner. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv