Petitioner herein is the 5th accused in crime No.113 of

2021 of Bedakom police station, Kasaragod. The aforesaid crime was registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent herein.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is a medical practitioner working in Ukrain.

The allegation raised against the petitioner and five others is that, the accused persons have collected an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- from the 2nd respondent by promising Ukrain visa for him, but later, failed to arrange the same. The aforesaid crime was registered in the above circumstances. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is to quash further proceedings in Annexure-A1 FIR.

3. Heard Sri.A.Rajasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Ranjith George, learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations contained in Annexure-A1 FIR is false and no offence is attracted against him. According to him, he was approached by the 2nd respondent through the 1st accused who is a driver working in Ukraine for making arrangement for a tourist visa to the 2nd respondent. As per the law prevailing in Ukraine, in order to get a visa for a foreign national to enter into the said nation, an invitation by an Ukraine national is necessary. As the 1st accused sought his help, the petitioner herein, by making use of his contact in Ukraine, made arrangement for an invitation, for enabling the 2nd respondent to get a visa to visit Ukraine. Annexure-A3 is the said invitation letter. On the basis of the same, the 2nd respondent obtained Annexure- A4 visa and went to Ukraine on 27.03.2021. It is pointed out that, as per law prevailing in Ukraine, when a guest is visiting Ukraine on the basis of such invitation, the Ukraine National inviting the visa holder has to be physically present at the airport to receive him. However, in this case, it is contended that the 2nd respondent went to Ukraine on 27.03.2021, without informing the said Ukraine national and because of that reason, Ukraine national was not present in the Airport, when the de facto complainant arrived. Therefore, he was denied entry to the country and later deported back to India. Complaint was submitted by the 2nd respondent in such circumstances. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is not involved in commission of the crime and his involvement is confined to arranging a visa for the de facto complainant and the amount collected by him was only Rs 35,000/- which was towards the expenses for arranging a invitation of the Ukraine national, to enable the de facto complainant to get a visa.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the allegations raised against the petitioner and the other accused persons is that, they have collected an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- from the 2nd respondent herein on a promise to arrange a job visa. But visa issued to him was only a tourist visa. It is also pointed out that the matter is under investigation and no interference is warranted at this stage. 5. The question that arises here is as to whether this is a fit case in which Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be invoked or not. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor the case is being investigated. The question as to the falsity or genuineness of the allegation made in the FIR is a matter of investigation and the examination of the same cannot be done in a proceedings of this nature at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the investigating officer is not conducting a proper investigation in the matter. Learned Counsel brought my attention to Annexure-A5 complaint submitted by him before the District Police Chief, Kasaragod through email on 19.04.2021, wherein he has highlighted all the sequence of events which according to him happened in this case. In the said complaint, he has also sought for initiating proceedings against the 2nd respondent for the offences punishab