ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.843/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur, arising out of Crime No.1756/2014 of North Paravur Police Station. Petitioner faces an indictment for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. According to the prosecution, the accused had, induced the defacto complainant to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- after promising to procure employment for the defacto complainant’s daughter as a teacher, and thereafter failed to provide such employment or return the money, and thereby committed the offence alleged under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Smt. Sherly Mol, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the prosecution allegations are false and that there are no documentary materials to prove that petitioner had ever demanded any money or promised to procure employment for the defacto complaint’s daughter. It was further submitted that the petitioner was a Central Government employee and that the agreement referred to in the seizure mahazar was not even executed by the petitioner but it is in the name of some other person and that there was nothing on record to rope in the petitioner as an accused.

4. Smt. Sreeja. V, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the contentions now raised are all factual disputes, which cannot be adjudicated in this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5. I have considered the rival contention.

6. Though the crime was registered in the year 2014, the final report is dated 17.12.2015. When petitioner approached this Court challenging the FIR in Crl.M.C.No.6306/2021, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted on 02.11.2023 that the final report had already been submitted. The E-Court proceedings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur, produced by the petitioner as Annexure-A5 mentions the filing date as 24.11.2023. However, that discrepancy, if any, by itself, cannot render the final report liable to be quashed. Mere delay in filing the final report in a case as alleged by the petitioner by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings.

7. However, if the final report was filed only on 24.11.2023, and the charge has not been framed, the petitioner is certainly at liberty to seek discharge in accordance with law. On the other hand, if the charge has already been framed, certainly the petitioner will have to get an adjudication on merits after trial. Recourse to the remedy under Section 528 of the BNSS, being an exceptional remedy, the courts must always be circumspect before interdicting the criminal proceedings. As the uncontroverted allegations in the final report prima facie do make out the offences alleged, it is not proper for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Therefore, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to apply for discharge, if any, in accordance with law, this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

Jka/29.08.24.

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7109/2024 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED

06.08.2014.

Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 19.09.2014.

Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE POLICE.

Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN CRL MC

6306/2021.

Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF COURT PROCEEDING Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED

12.12.2015 WHICH IS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE MAGISTRATE COURT ON 24.11.2023.

Annexure A7 SCENE MAHASAR DATED 19.09.2014.

Annexure A8 SEIZURE MAHASAR DATED 08.07.2015.