Maneesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short) by the accused in Crime No.436 of 2015 of Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad. The relief sought for in this petition is as under:

“To call for the records leading to Annexure.A1 Final Report and quash the same and stay all further proceedings in Crime No.436/2015 of Vythiri Police Station, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta as CC No.69/2016.”

The petitioner is the accused in the above crime.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused final report and relevant documents.

In this matter the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 392, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 119(b) of Kerala Police Act.

The specific allegation is that the defacto complainant, a married lady, made acquaintance with the accused, while the defacto complainant along with her husband and children were residing at Vythiri and the accused, who got appointed as the driver, assisted the defacto complainant and her children, in the absence of her husband. He was permitted to reside on the upstairs of the building. Thereafter, it was noticed that the accused took the photos of the defacto complainant, while she was bathing. On knowing the same, when the defacto complainant wanted to destroy those photos, the accused demanded money from the defacto complainant on threatening her that those photos would be shown to her husband and children. Accordingly she was forced to transfer Rs.17 lakh from her account to the account of the accused. He also bagged 90 sovereigns of gold ornaments and pledged the same at Manappuram Finance, State Bank of India, Chundel and Kosamattam Finance, Kalpetta, and misappropriated the money. Thus the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences. The further allegation is that ultimately an agreement was entered into between the defacto complainant and the accused and thereby the accused agreed to give back Rs.42,06,300/-. But the money also not so far paid.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. It is argued that the petitioner never worked as the driver of the defacto complainant, though he worked as care taker of her flat in Koyilandy. It is also submitted that the agreement, alleged to be executed by the petitioner, is also not produced.

Highlighting the fact that there are no materials in this case to go for trial, prima facie, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for quashment of the proceedings.

While opposing quashment, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there are allegations, prima facie, to see commission of the offences and statements of the defacto complainant and other witnesses would show the allegations. In this matter, there is specific allegation that the petitioner obtained money from the defacto complainant threatening her by using her illicit photograph and also obtained gold ornaments for the purpose of pledging. Thereafter he failed to give the amount. So, the element of misappropriation, cheating, etc. were made out, prima facie, and the innocence of the accused, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a matter to be decided after adducing evidence. Since the prosecution materials, prima facie, suggest specific allegations against the petitioner in this matter, the petitioner would require trial along with other accused. Therefore, quashment cannot be considered.

Therefore, without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the allegation raised against the petitioner, in the facts of the case, quashment cannot be considered.

Accordingly this Crl.M.C stands dismissed.

Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.