Kerala High Court
Balasubramanian T vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
2025:KER:63090
Crl.M.C.No.6682/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6682 OF 2021
CRIME NO.396/2019 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, Wayanad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.321 OF 2019 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 BALASUBRAMANIAN T.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. THANKARAJ, KUDITHERU, KANKAYAM, PACHAPALAYAM POST,
TIRUPUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.
2 MAHESWARI,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. SARAVANAKUMAR, MUTHANENDHAL VALUDI VILLAGE,
MANAMADHURI TALUK, SIVAGANGA DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.
3 THANKAPANDI B.,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. BHOOMINATHAN, CHINNAMCHETTY PETTI, PANDALGUDIO
VILLAGE, TAMILNADU.
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.B.SHYNI
SHRI.RAJESH KUMAR R.
SHRI.V.R.ANILKUMAR
SHRI.PAREETH LUTHUFIN K.B.
SHRI.RAMEES P.K.
SMT.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
2025:KER:63090
Crl.M.C.No.6682/2021
2
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 SARANYA
AGED 20 YEARS
D/O. KARIMBAN @ RAJAN, VARIKKERI PANIYA COLONY, CHEERAL
AMSOM, CHEERAL P.O., EAST CHEERAL SULTHAN BATHERY
WAYANAD DISTRICT
3 SANDHYA
AGED 20 YEARS
D/O. VENU, VARIKKERI PANIYA COLONY, CHEERAL AMSOM,
CHEERAL P.O., EAST CHEERAL SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD
DISTRICT
4 SANGEETHA
AGED 20 YEARS
D/O. VELLA VARIKKERIPANIYA COLONY, CHEERAL, CHEERAL
AMSOM
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:63090
Crl.M.C.No.6682/2021
3
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in C.P..No.28 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthanbathery, which was committed and renumbered before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta, as S.C.No.321/2019. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 511 and 370(5) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The prosecution case is that on 13.05.2019, about 11.00 am, the accused attempted to transport four minor girls in a vehicle for employing them in a textile mill at Tirupur in Tamil Nadu. Upon getting information about the above attempt from the Child Welfare Office, the Sulthanbathery Police intercepted and got the victim girls rescued to their parents. Accordingly the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthanbathery Police Station has registered the crime, and commenced the investigation.
2025:KER:63090
Crl.M.C.No.6682/2021
4
3. After the completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of
Police, Sulathan Batheri Police Station filed a Final Report alleging the offences under Sections 511 and 370 (5) r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
4. The case was committed and made over to the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after proceeding with the hearing under Section 227 Cr.P.C., came to the finding that the offence under Section 370(5) r/w Section 511 is not attracted in the case, since the prosecution could not bring out anything to show that the minor girls were attempted to be transported for the purpose of any exploitation. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the offence of attempt to kidnap the minor girls, would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and accordingly, framed charge for the said offence, and passed the order dated 21.10.2021 transmitting the case back to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthanbathery, for proceeding with the trial. The aforesaid order is under challenge, at the instance of the accused, in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the offence under Section 363 IPC will not be attracted in the case on hand, since there is nothing on 2025:KER:63090 Crl.M.C.No.6682/2021 5 record to show that the victim girls were attempted to be taken without getting consent of their guardians.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
7. At the outset, it has to be stated that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is patently wrong, since it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge had ignored the fact that the attempt of the accused to take minor girls for employment in a spinning mill would ex facie show that it was intended for exploitation. Subjecting minor girls to such employment in spinning mills and other factories itself would amount to exploitation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is seen to have lost sight of the above aspect, and passed the impugned order excluding the offence under Section 370(5) r/w Section 511 IPC and directing framing of charges for the commission of offence under Section 363 r/w Section 511 and 34 IPC.
8. Coming to the challenge raised by the petitioners against the non-applicability of Section 363 IPC, it has to be stated that the Final Report and the statement of witnesses would clearly reveal that the accused attempted to transport the four minor girls for employment 2025:KER:63090 Crl.M.C.No.6682/2021 6 in a factory without the consent of their parents. The parents of the above four girls have given statements to the Investigating Officer in unequivocal terms that the attempt on the part of the petitioners in the above regard, was without their knowledge and consent.
9. It is true that the victim girls had not opposed the above attempt on the part of the petitioners. But, as far as the offence of kidnapping as defined under Section 361 IPC is concerned, the consent of the victims are not material. In the case on hand, the statement of the parents of the victims would categorically reveal that the girls were attempted to be taken from their lawful guardianship without their consent. Thus, there is absolutely no basis for the challenge raised by the petitioners in the case on hand.
10. As already stated above, since the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dropped the offence under Section 370 (5) r/w Section 511 IPC, without taking note of the exploitation, which the victims might have been subjected to at the spinning mill, it is highly necessary to set aside the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in the above regard.
2025:KER:63090 Crl.M.C.No.6682/2021 7
11. In the above circumstances, the Crl.M.C. stands dismissed with a direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the framing of charges against the petitioners/accused under Section 370(5) r/w Section 511 IPC and Section 363 r/w Section 511 IPC. If the case is transferred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthanbathery, pursuant to the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it shall be forthwith re-transmitted to the Sessions Court concerned, in the same CP Number which was earlier assigned to it, so that the trial could be continued in SC No.321/2019.
sd/
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
jm/
2025:KER:63090
Crl.M.C.No.6682/2021
8
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6682/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 396/2019 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 396/2019 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
Annexure III TYPED COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN CRIME NO. 396/2019 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION.
Annexure IV A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I KALPETTA WAYANAD IN SC. NO. 321/2019.