IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 374 OF 2020 CRIME NO.332/2015 OF Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1691 OF 2016 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/S:

SOUMYA SATHYASHEELAN, AGED 36 YEARS W/O. VINOD MENON RAJANA NIVAS, NJEKKAD MUTHANA ROAD, VADASSERIKONAM POST, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, VARKKALA TALUK, PIN-695146 BY ADVS.

N.K.MOHANLAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT/S:

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 011

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

3 ANTONY PRINCE, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. EDISON GOMAS, TC - 14/1461, ARAMAM VEETTIL, BAKERY JUNCTION, PALAYAM WARD, THAIKKAD VILLAGE, PIN-695014 OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SANAL P.RAJ, P.P.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

09.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 9^th day of August 2024 The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.1691/2016 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The first accused in the case is the husband of the petitioner. The third respondent is the defacto complainant. The case was registered by the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram as Crime No.332/2015 against the petitioner and her husband. On conclusion of the investigation Annexure A1 final report was filed against the petitioner and her husband. Petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings against her on the basis of Annexure A1.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused Crl.M.C and Annexure A1 final report.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. He also submitted that even if the evidence gathered by the prosecution is accepted in toto, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that there is specific allegation against the petitioner. He pointed out that the petitioner was inducted in the company substituting the defacto complainant and the first accused is none other than her husband. He submitted that the case against the petitioner is to be analysed only after adducing evidence in trial. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that this Court will not be justified in invoking the inherent power to quash the proceedings, in the facts of this case.

5. On an over all consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to move the trial court for discharge. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file appropriate application for discharge under Section 262 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). If such an application for discharge is filed, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is permitted to move the application through the Counsel.

The Crl.M.C.is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

S.MANU, JUDGE jm/

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 374/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.1691/2016 OF HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26.8.2016.