Asha Thomas vs State Of Kerala

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is a lady. She is arrayed as the accused in Crime No.1891 of 2018 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, she is

accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

In the complaint lodged before the police by the RTO, Pathanamthitta, the de facto complainant states that the petitioner approached him seeking

transfer of ownership of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL 36E 8022 and submitted the relevant documents which were seen signed by

Smt.P.N.Jagadamma, the registered owner of the vehicle. Along with the application for transfer of ownership, the petitioner had also produced

statutory forms signed by the original owner, the letter issued by the financier, receipts showing remittance of fees etc. The RTO acted on the

application filed by the petitioner. Later, the original owner is alleged to have approached the RTO and he was informed that she had handed over the

entire papers of the vehicle to a certain Prajith on the understanding that he would pay the value of the vehicle, but he failed to pay the amount

assured. Based on such complaint filed before the original owner, the police was alerted and the crime was registered.

Sri.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid Prajith approached the petitioner and entered into an

agreement for sale in respect of the vehicle. Believing his words the petitioner transferred a total sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the said person, out of which

Rs.9 lakhs was transferred through the account maintained by the petitioner with the State Bank of India and the balance amount by cash. To

substantiate the said contention, reliance is placed by the learned counsel on Annexure-2 bank statement. She states that she is a bona fide purchaser

and she was duped by the aforesaid Prajith. It is further contended that the petitioner had submitted a complaint before the Police arraying Prajith as

an accused and the same is pending.

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor who opposed the prayer.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case records which were made available. Even according to the de facto

complainant, she had entrusted the papers in respect of her vehicle to Prajith and it was when he refused to pay the value of the vehicle that she

proceeded to lodge a complaint before the authorities. The case of the petitioner is that she was approached by the aforesaid Prajith and a sum of

Rs.14 Lakhs was collected from her. The police have seized the entire records from the office of the RTO. As to whether, the petitioner is an

innocent purchaser or whether she has a larger role to play can only be deduced after the completion of investigation. However, I find that the

prosecution has no case that the petitioner is involved in any other crimes. The records produced by the petitioner shows that substantial sums were

transferred by her to the aforesaid Prajith. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for

an effective investigation in the instant case. Stringent conditions can be imposed to ensure that the petitioner cooperates with the investigation.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall

undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.,

for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.