CRL.MC Nos. 6022/2023 & 6047/2023 (K.R. Raju v. State of Kerala)

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 6022 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 108/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` K.R.RAJU AGED52YEARS SONOFRAMAKRISHNAN, KANNEKADANHOUSE,CHETTICHALDESOM, - CHEMPUCHIRAP.O.,THRISSUR,PIN680684 ``` ``` BYADVS. M.J.SANTHOSH ANTONYPAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 ``` ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON31.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.6022&6047OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV MONDAY,THE31[ST]DAYOFJULY2023/9THSRAVANA,1945 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 6047 OF 2023`** ``` AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTINCC220/2017OFJUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` K.R.RAJU AGED52YEARS SONOFRAMAKRISHNAN, KANNEKADANHOUSE,CHETTICHALDESOM, - CHEMPUCHIRAP.O,THRISSUR.,PIN680684 BYADVS. M.J.SANTHOSH ANTONYPAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 SMT.NEEMATV,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON31.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.6022&6047OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** The petitioner states that he has been arrayed as the 3rd accused in C.C. No. 108/2017 and C.C. No. 220/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid cases have arisen from Crime Nos. 51341/2015 and 1350/2015 of the Thampanoor Police Station registered under sections. 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The informant alleged that the accused were running an institution without obtaining permits or licenses from the statutory authorities, and that they had induced the informant to believe that a Driver's visa would be provided, but had not provided the visa as assured. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the acts committed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. The only allegation is that certain amounts were transferred by the 1st accused to the account of the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that under no circumstances, based on the allegation in the final report, the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC would be attracted. ``` CRL.MCNO.6022&6047OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 4. In response, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation conducted disclosed that the recruiting company by the name “Global Trade Links” was having its office in various places in the State of Kerala. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were responsible for the running of the business in Thiruvananthapuram. Whereas the petitioner herein is the person responsible for the running of the business at Ernakulam, the Head Office. It is submitted that the statement of the witness discloses that the petitioner herein was also responsible for the conduct of the business and that amounts were transferred by accused Nos. 1 and 2, to the petitioner. It is submitted that there are materials linking the petitioner herein with the crime. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials made available. 6. It has been well-settled by now that when a plea for quashing a prosecution in its nascent stages is made, this Court is entrusted with the responsibility of ascertaining whether the uncontested allegations outlined in the complaint or the charge constitute an offense. In the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court is not justified in minutely scrutinizing the materials that are yet to be ``` CRL.MCNO.6022&6047OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` presented and evaluated in their proper context. Jurisdiction under the provision must be exercised sparingly, reserving it for exceptional circumstances, and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. At this juncture, only a prima facie case ought to be considered, in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as **R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab** (AIR 1960 SC 866), **State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal** (1992 SCC (Cr) 426), **State of Bihar vs. PP Sharma** (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192), **Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another** (2005 SCC (Cr.) 293), and more recently in **Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others** [2021 SCC Online SC 315]. 7. Upon careful examination of the available materials and evaluation of the records in the factual backdrop of the present case, I am of the view that it would be premature to deduce that no offense has been established against the petitioner at this stage. Upon perusal of the entirety of the charge sheet, it becomes evident that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioner, invoking specific offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel concerning the conduct of the accused, the plausibility of the version of ``` CRL.MCNO.6022&6047OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` the prosecution witnesses and other related matters fall within the domain of consideration by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. This Court will not be justified in assessing the appropriateness, veracity, or accuracy of the allegations mentioned in the charge at this juncture based on the CD statements; rather, these aspects are to be deliberated upon by the trial court at the opportune stage after evaluating the evidence adduced before court. It would be prudent for this court to abstain from expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations at this stage so as to prevent any prejudice to either the prosecution or the accused. In that view of the matter, I hold that the petitioner has not made out any case for intervention at this stage. If the petitioner deems it appropriate, he may seek discharge at the appropriate stage. This petition is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.6022&6047OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6022/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure1THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFFIR&FISINCRIEMNO. 1341/15DATED17/9/15OFTHAMPANOORPOLICE STATION. ``` ``` Annexure2THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFFINALREPORTINC.C. NO.108/17DATED21/12/2016ONTHEFILEFO HON'BLEJFCMCOURT-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` Annexure3THETRUECOPYOFE-COURTSDAILYSTATUSDATED 22/12/2022INC.C.NO.108/17DATED21/12/2016 ONTHEFILEFOHON'BLEJFCMCOURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.6022&6047OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6047/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure1THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFFIR&FISINCRIME NO.1350/15DATED18/09/2015OFTHAMPANOOR POLICESTATION.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure2THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFFINALREPORTINC.C. NO.220/17DATED26/12/2016ONTHEFILEOF HON'BLEJFCMCOURT-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure3THETRUECOPYOFE-COURTSDAILYSTATUSININ C.C.NO.220/17DATED22/12/2022ONTHEFILEOF HON'BLEJFCMCOURT-III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ```