Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Johnson Mathew vs The State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2019

Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar

Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

  MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940

                     Crl.MC.No. 1919 of 2016

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 869/2014 of JUDICIAL
             MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM

CRIME NO. 561/2014 OF Kaduthuruthi Police Station, Kottayam

PETITIONER/S:

              JOHNSON MATHEW,AGED 42 YEARS
              S/O.MATHEW, CHITTAKKATTU ROSE VILLA, KURIANAD,
              MONIPPALLY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
              DISTRICT.

              BY ADV. SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM


RESPONDENT/S:
      1     THE STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
            COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

      2       THE SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF POLICE
              KADUTHURUTHY CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM DISTICT,
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
              COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.



OTHER PRESENT:
            SRI.BINEESH    PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No. 1919 of 2016



                             -2-




                           ORDER

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. 869 of 2014 on the files of the court below. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short "the ITP Act").

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 19-5-2014 at about 3.30 p.m., the petitioner was found indulging in sexual intercourse with a lady in the house of the first accused.

3. The petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. praying for quashing the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Heard.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the Crl.MC.No. 1919 of 2016 -3- petitioner constituting the ingredients of the offences alleged, and in the said circumstances, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against the petitioner is permitted to be continued.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was only a customer. Therefore, the offence under Section 3 of the ITP Act is not attracted as against the petitioner. There is also no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner committed any of the acts referred to in Section 5 of the ITP Act. Thus, it appears that there is absolutely no allegation that the petitioners committed any of the offences under Section 3 or Section 5 of the ITP Act. There is also no material before the court constituting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the ITP Act. In the said circumstances, no successful prosecution can be maintained against the petitioner.

7. Since there is no allegation or material before the Court constituting the ingredients of the offences alleged, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against Crl.MC.No. 1919 of 2016 -4- the petitioner is permitted to be continued. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to quash the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner in the above said case, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed. Dated this the 18th day of February, 2019.

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

ani/ Crl.MC.No. 1919 of 2016 -5- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/ ANNEXURE:

ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.561/2014 DATED 19/5/2014 ANNEXURE - II TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST DATED 17/5/2014 ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 31/5/2014