ANTHRU v. STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7575 of 2018** **CC 456/2018 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KURUPPAMPADY** **CRIME NO. 458/2018 OF Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED:** **ANTHRU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.ASSAINAR, MUTHUVASSERY HOUSE, PANIPRA KARA, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.NAVAS SMT.E.G.AMBILY SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN SRI.P.A.SHAJI SAMAD SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683037.** ## *** ADDITIONAL R3 TO R9 IMPLEADED:** **ADDL. SHAH JALAL, AGED 26 YEARS, R3 S/O.ABDUL SALAM, KISHORPUR, THANA BAGA VILLAGE, RAJSHAHI DISTRICT, BANGLADESH. ADDL. MD SHAGOR ALI SARKAR, AGED 28 YEARS, R4 S/O.ABDUL RASID SARKAR, KISHORPUR, THANA BAGA VILLAGE, RAJSHAHI DISTRICT, BENGLADESH.** **Crl.MC.No. 7575 of 2018** **2** **ADDL. MD SUGON ALI, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MD.MOAN UDDIN, R5 KISHORPUR, THANA BAGA VILLAGE, RAJSHAHI DISTRICT, BENGLADESH.** **ADDL. MD. MONIRUZZAMAN, AGED 23 YEARS, R6 S/O.SHAMSAR MANDAL, KISHORPUR, THANA BAGA VILLAGE, RAJSHAHI DISTRICT, BENGLADESH.** **ADDL. MD SAMRAT HOSEN, AGED 25 YEARS, R7 S/O.MOHAMMED ZOHUR UDDIN MONDOL,KISHORPUR, THANA BAGA VILLAGE, RAJSHAHI DISTRICT, BENGLADESH. ADDL. MD MOZAMMEL HAQUE, AGED 42 YEARS, R8 S/O.NOJIMODDIN SODDAR, FULBARIA, MIRPUR VILLAGE KUSHTIA DISTRICT, BENGLADESH.** **ADDL. MD NUR ISLAM, AGED 28 YEARS, R9 S/O.MD KHOLILUR RAHMAN, KISHORPUR, THANA BAGA VILLAGE, RAJSHAHI DISTRICT, BENGLADESH.** *** ADDITIONAL R3 TO R9 WERE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.06.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2019** **R1 & R2 BY SRI M S BREEZ, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL R3 TO R9 BY ADV.SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 7575 of 2018** **3** ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. On 12.03.2018, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuruppumpady Police Station along with his party, intercepted four persons on reasonable suspicion while they were standing outside a plywood factory and they were asked to divulge their credentials. Further enquiry revealed that they were citizens of Bangladesh and were working in Star Plywoods, a Company owned by the petitioner. It was also revealed that they had travelled to India illegally without any valid travel document or VISA and they were illegally staying on in the country. They were arrested and Crime No.458 of 2018 was registered under Sections 13, 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and under Section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India Act), 1920. Detailed investigation was conducted and final report was laid before the jurisdictional court and the case is now pending as C.C.No.456 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuruppumpady. 3. Sri.C.A.Navas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been roped in on the allegation that he had provided employment to accused Nos. 1 to 7 **Crl.MC.No. 7575 of 2018** **4** knowing fully well that they had entered the country in an illegal manner. The offence of abetment as defined in 14C of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004 would have no application is the submission. He would further contend that the petitioner had not directly employed the accused Nos. 1 to 7 and they were brought to the company for loading purposes by the contractor. It is further urged that no documents evidencing the fact that the said persons had worked in the establishment of the petitioner were seized by the detecting officer. He would rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal** [(1992) SCC (Cr) 426] and it is contended that this is a fit case warranting exercise of powers under Section 482 to quash the proceedings. 4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, referred to the final report and submitted that cogent materials have been collected by the investigating officer, which revealed that the petitioner herein had employed the accused Nos. 1 to 7 violating the provisions of the relevant laws. It is further submitted that the contentions now advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are in the realm of appreciation of evidence, which can be considered only at the stage of trial. This Court will not be justified in **Crl.MC.No. 7575 of 2018** **5** shifting and weighing the material evidence and to quash the proceedings, contends the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. In the course of proceedings, accused Nos.1 to 7 have entered appearance through their counsel Sri.P.Thomas Geeverghese. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the accused are still languishing in custody and he prays that necessary directions be issued to the court below to proceed with the trial. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There can be no dispute with regard to the proposition of law enunciated in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, wherein it has been held that the inherent powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide enough to encompass almost all situations in order to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 7. The question, however, is when and under what situation, the High Court should step in and pass appropriate orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in a criminal trial. In this context, it will be relevant to remind oneself of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. It has been held that while exercising **Crl.MC.No. 7575 of 2018** **6** jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation could be sustained. That is the function of the trial Court. Section 482 of the Code is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without a full-fledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power has be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 8. There are ample materials in the case diary which show that the accused Nos. 1 to 7 had worked in the establishment of the petitioner for a prolonged period. I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affect the case of either the prosecution or the accused. Having gone though the materials, it does not appear to me that this is a fit case, wherein this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings as the contention advanced by the petitioner are all matters, which are to be considered by the trial court at the stage of evidence. **Crl.MC.No. 7575 of 2018** **7** Reserving the rights of the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the trial court, this petition will stand dismissed. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** DSV/13.6.19 **Crl.MC.No. 7575 of 2018** **8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND F1 STATEMENTS IN CRIME NO.458/2018 OF THE KURUPPAMPADY POLICE PRODUCED BEFORE JFCM COURT, KURUPPAMPADY IN CC NO.456/2018.** **ANNEXURE A2** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.458 OF 2018 OF THE KURUPPAMPADY POLICE PRODUCED BEFORE JFCM COURT, KURUPPAMPADY IN CC NO.456/2018.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE**