Kerala High Court
Muhammad Basheer vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6242 OF 2016
CRIME NO.451/2008 OF ERATTUPETTAH POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.12 OF 2009 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ERATTUPETTA
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
MUHAMMAD BASHEER
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O SAYED MUHAMMED, THOUFEEQ MANSIL,
PARATHODU, EDAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.HASSAN
SMT.JULIA PRIYA RESHMY
SRI.RIJO JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE S.I OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA REP. BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA- 682 031
2 ANU
W/O ANIL, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EALAPPUNGAL BHAGOM,
THALAPPALAM, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE- 686 001
BY ADV.
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ N.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.6242 of 2016
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.6242 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of August, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner in
L.P.No.5/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Erattupetta arising from Crime
No.451 of 2008 of Erattupetta Police Station.
Petitioner is the 3rd accused in the above case. The
offence alleged against the petitioner and other
accused are under Sections 366 and 420 r/w 34 IPC
and also under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. The prosecution case is that, on
02.07.2008, accused 1 and 2 approached CW1 Anu
and promised to arrange a permanent job of
receptionist in Dubai on payment of Rs.1,15,000/-,
But they could not make any arrangement to get a
permanent visa promised by them. On the other
hand, against their promise, they offered a visiting
visa, stating as if they could arrange a permanent
visa in due course. It is the case of the prosecution
that the 3rd accused telephoned from Dubai,
inducing CW1 to accept the visiting visa and he
undertook to get a permanent visa after her visit in
Dubai. Believing the words of accused 1 to 3, CW1
made all preparations to go to Dubai on the visiting
visa, and she expended Rs.15,500/- also for taking
air ticket to Dubai. The 2nd accused wrote a letter to
3rd accused expressing their design to use CW1 for
immoral purposes, and handed it over to CW1 in a
hidden condition within a packet containing a lunki
and cover, requiring her to entrust the same to the
3rd accused in Dubai. Suspecting the conduct of the
accused, CW1 refused to go to Dubai, and thereby
she suffered a loss of Rs.1,30,500/-. It is the case
of the prosecution that accused 1 to 3 have
consciously aided each other to commit the offence
against CW1 and they are charged with the above
offences. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 faced trial and they
were acquitted as per Annexure 3 judgment. It is
submitted that, in the light of the above judgment
continuation of the prosecution against the
petitioner alone is an abuse of process of court.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. After hearing both sides, I think there is
force in the argument of the petitioner. This Court
perused Annexure 3 judgment. The relevant portion
of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:
"12. Even if Ext. P8 is found to be a letter
written by the 2nd accused introducing the defacto
complainant (CW1) to the 3 rd accused, there is
absolutely no direct mention about their intention
to use her for any immoral purposes. It is for the
defacto complainant to assign a meaning to the
words used in Ext.P8 to infer an offence punishable
under S.5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Since PW1 has disowned Ext.P8, this court is
helpless to identify any such negative meaning in
the words written in Ext.P8. Moreover, it was
brought out in evidence from PW5 that the
allegation in Ext.Pl (a) FIR was made without any
basis because of the simple fact that CW6 (PW4)
had no opportunity to see Ext.P8 letter, which was
handed over by CW1 (PW1) to CW7 (PW5) on
21.12.2008. Thus, in my view, an allegation under
S.5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act was
made against the accused with a view to blackmail
them to get the money back to CW1 (PW1). The
oral testimony of the defacto complainant as PW1
is sufficient to conclude that she has no complaint
against any of the accused on their paying the
entire money due to them, including the air ticket
charges expended by her. From the proved facts
and circumstances, I find that the prosecution
failed miserably to prove any of the charged
levelled against the accused 1 and 2. Hence, I have
no hesitation to conclude that the accused 1 and 2
are not guilty of the offences charged against
them. Point No.1 is answered accordingly."
5. A perusal of the above paragraph would
show that the trial court disbelieved the case of the
prosecution. If that be the case, the continuation of
the prosecution against the petitioner alone is a
judicial waste of time. Hence, the prosecution
against the petitioner can be quashed.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
allowed. All further proceedings against the
petitioner in L.P.No.5/2010 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta arising
from Crime No.451 of 2008 of Erattupetta Police
Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR
DATED 20-12-08 OF THE ERATTUPETTA
POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE
ANNEXURE 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 31-07-10 IN SC 316/09 OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE(SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM
ANNEXURE 4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
DDEPOSITION OF THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT I SC 316/09 OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(SPECIAL)
KOTTAYAM
ANNEXURE 5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.20 OF
THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER
MUHAMMED BAHSEER
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
