SUNIMOL GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A couple, residents of United Kingdom, found themselves arrayed as accused in Crime No. 587 of 2012 of Muvattupuzha Police Station on the allegation that they had committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are none other than the parents of the petitioner in B.A. 7746 of 2012, who is the first accused in the crime. Claiming that the allegations against them are totally false and are baseless and have been made only with the intention of harassing and humiliating them, the couple by these applications seek pre -arrest bail.

(2.) The complaint which led to the registration of the crime is produced by the petitioner as Annexure A in B.A. 7746 of 2012 in which the petitioner is the husband of the petitioner in B.A. 7474 of 2012. In short, the allegation is that having promised M.B.B.S. Admission in the New Castle University for the son of the defacto complainant, the couple and the parents of the petitioner in B.A.7746 of 2012 had received 2.47 crores of rupees. They did not honour their promise and according to the defacto complainant, the money has been misappropriated by the couple.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these applications for pre -arrest bail pointed out that a reading of Annexure A complaint would leave one in no doubt that the story put forward by the defacto complainant is quite unbelievable. It is inconceivable that a person would go on paying amounts without making any verification and without ascertaining whether the money so paid was being utilized for the purpose for which it was given to the petitioners. The petitioners would point out that in fact the son of the defacto complainant, who says that he had paid 2.47 crores, had been to England and had undergone a course in Management Studies in a different institution. He had returned home in the month of December, 2011 and even thereafter, going by the allegations in the complaint, the defacto complainant had continued to pay amounts. It is pointed out that when the son of the defacto complainant returned to his native place in December, 2011, he would have surely conveyed what had transpired in U.K. to his father and to believe that due to the threat and coercion exerted by the petitioners, the son kept mum is extremely difficult. The petitioners would point out that there is nothing to show that any amount has been paid to the petitioners. Pointing out that there are no materials at all to show that the allegations in the complaint are prima facie supported by any material, petitioners would point out that they have been falsely implicated.