Matheen Mannanparamba vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5748 Ker

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

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

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