IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3690 of 2010(C) -------------------------------- (AGAINST C.C. NO.313/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT - 1, THODUPUZHA.) .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------ BINSHA THOMAS,W/O.JINTO, THOTTATHILKUZHIYIL HOUSE,KOTHANALOOR PO, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3690 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.313/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thodupuzha, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 465 and 466 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-III final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimannoor, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure to quash the cognizance taken against her contending that there is absolutely no material to connect her with the offences. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Prosecution case is that, as is clear from Annexure-III final report, first accused forged the birth certificate of the second accused, to enable it to be produced before Italian Embassy, Bombay as CRMC 3690/10 2 if it was issued by Udumpannoor Grama Panchayat, making it believed that it is genuine and produced it before Home Secretary, Kerala and thereby committed the offences under Sections 465 and 466 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The fact that petitioner had been in Italy from 2006 onwards is not disputed. Annexure-I copy of the passport of the petitioner shows that petitioner had been in India from 20.4.2006 to 22.5.2006, 27.3.2008 to 24.4.2008, 1.4.2009 to 8.5.2009 and from 23.6.2010 to 6.7.2010. As per the final report, forgery was committed before 10.2.2009. As seen from Annexure-I passport, petitioner had been in India only from 27.3.2008 to 24.4.2008 and earlier, from 20.4.2006 to 22.5.2006. It is not disputed that when the forged birth register extract was produced by the first accused before the Home Secretary for attestation, petitioner was not in India. CRMC 3690/10 3 5. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that none of the witnesses had stated against the petitioner, when their statements were recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was not disputed by the learned Public prosecutor. Prosecution case is that to enable the petitioner, the second accused, to produce the birth certificate before Italian Embassy, first accused, the husband of her sister, produced certificates including the forged certificate before Home Secretary on 10.2.2009. When petitioner was not in India, she could not have forged the document as alleged by the prosecution. There is no material whatsoever to connect the petitioner with the forgery or the production of the forged document before Home Secretary. Even if first accused committed forgery and it was to help the petitioner, based on that allegation, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences, when there is no material to connect the CRMC 3690/10 4 petitioner with the offences alleged. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the court. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.313/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thodupuzha as against the petitioner/second accused is quashed. 16th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv