Crl.M.C.No.3221/2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 3221 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1527/2016 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MATHEEN MANNANPARAMBA,
AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O.MUHAMMED ISAK,
RESIDING AT AMAL HOUSE,
PUTHIYAPADAM THARIPARAMBU, KALLAYI (P. O)
PANNIYANAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 003.
BY ADVS.
K.REEHA KHADER
RESHMA R.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001.
BY ADV MANU S. ASG OF INDIA
SRI. C.S.HRITHWIK -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.3221/2022 2
ORDER
The petitioner who is the accused in C.C.No.1527 of 2016 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba has filed this Crl.M.C. being aggrieved by Annexure-A2 order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate in C.M.P.No.2409 of 2021. As per the impugned order, the prayer for permission to go abroad was allowed by the learned Magistrate, but the period granted by the learned Magistrate was only for a period of one year. In this Crl.M.C. the petitioner challenges the said order to the extent of limiting the permission to a period of one year. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she is employed as Administrative Assistant in an establishment in Dubai and for the purpose of renewal of visa a minimum period of two years validity should be there for the passport. Since permission granted by the court is limited to one year it may cause prejudice to her in pursuing the employment.
2. Heard Sree Reeha Khader, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the Crl.M.C.No.3221/2022 3 State.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are 323, 324 of IPC, which is pending trial. Merely because of the reason that the petitioner was happened to be implicated in an offence, it is not justifiable to deny the opportunity to pursue her carrier for livelihood. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is already granted by the Magistrate and the dispute is with regard to the period of permission. Thus, the learned Magistrate prima facie found that she is entitled to go abroad. In such circumstances, I am of the view that taking into account all the relevant inputs, some indulgence can be shown.
In such circumstances, Annexure-A2 order shall stand modified by re-fixing the period of permission for the petitioner to leave the country as two years. Petitioner shall comply with all the conditions stipulated in the order.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE DG/30.05.22 Crl.M.C.No.3221/2022 4 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3221/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRY PERMIT ISSUED BY THE UAE GOVERNMENT Annexure A2 6. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA CMP NO.2409/21 IN CC NO.1527/2016 DATED 5/10/2021