LAWS(KER)-2011-6-51

ZARIUS ADIL MAJOO Vs. STATE

Decided On June 13, 2011
ZARIUS ADIL MAJOO Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS 1 to 3 are accused in Crime No.566 of Ettumanoor Police Station for offence punishable under 420 read with Section 34 of he Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on the complaint of the second respondent. Complaint in short is that though petitioners had promised employment to the second respondent abroad and collected money from him that promise was not complied and thereby second respondent was cheated. PETITIONERS were arrested by the Etturmanoor Police on 10.06.2011 and produced before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ettumanoor on 11.6.2011. They were remanded to judicial custody. Application for bail moved by petitioners was posted on 16.06.2011. This day (13.6.2011) petitioners filed C.M.P. No.1541 of 2011 to advance hearing of the application for bail (C.M.P. No. of 2011). Leaned counsel submitted that C.M.P. No.1541 of 2011 was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial First Class Magistrate-I this day observing that there are serious allegations against petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is to be heard, he will be available only by 16.06.2011 and hence no purpose would be served in advancing the case. Prayer in this petition is to quash the FIR in Crime No.566 of 2011. It is submitted by learned counsel that the allegations made against petitioners are false and at any rate the only aggrieved person in the case, second respondent with whom the matter has already been settled, has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court. In the affidavit second respondent has stated that he has no objection in quashing the proceeding in Crime No.566 of 2011. Learned counsel made an alternative prayer that petitioners may be released on bail until C.M.P. No.1540 of 2011 is decided by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I. Learned counsel invited my attention to the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or short, "the Code"). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also who sought time to get instruction in the matter.

(2.) I am not going into the question in this proceeding whether proceeding against petitioner should be quashed on the strength of the alleged settlement with second respondent. Having regard to the nature of allegations made I am also not inclined to think that petitioners 1 and 2 must be released on bail at this stage. They have to wait till disposal of the application for bail filed by them.