JANIZ K THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused in C.C. No. 458 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam Smt. Janiz K. Thomas is the revision petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 1583 of 2012. She and her husband Sri. K.M. Thomas who are respectively accused Nos. 2 and 1 in C.C. No. 3176 of 2005 on the file of the same Court, have filed Crl. R.P. No. 1584 of 2012. The said Smt. Janiz K. Thomas and the said Sri. K.M. Thomas along with their co-accused in C.C. No. 2867 of 2005 on the file of the same Court, have filed Crl. R.P. No. 1585 of 2012. Crl. R.P. No. 1586 of 2012 has been filed by the said Sri. K.M. Thomas and his co-accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in C.C. No. 3486 of 2006 on the file of the same Court. The petitioners in Crl. R.P. Nos. 1583 & 1586 of 2012 are indicted for offences under sections 406, 420 and 477 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners in the other two revision petitions are charge sheeted alleging commission of offences under sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 IPC. All these revision petitions have been filed against the orders dismissing the applications filed by the revision petitioners under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge, moved in the respective calender cases. The commonness in the factual matrix, the subject matter as also the parties persuaded me to take up the matters simultaneously for hearing. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in all these revision petitions also sought for a joint hearing of the matters. Now, they are being disposed of by this order. Sri. K.M. Thomas and his wife Smt. Janiz K. Thomas are conducting an institution by name Care & Concern Agencies and Services Pvt. Ltd., claims to be an educational agency, at Palarivattom. The gist of the allegations against them is that they had collected money for arranging admission to students in certain educational institutions run by some of the respondents/accused persons, for nursing at Bangalore and admissions were not arranged in recognized institutions besides the failure to arrange bank loans, as promised. Non-recognition for that course by the Government of Karnataka, in such institutions was also alleged. Respondent No. 2 in Crl. R.P. Nos. 1583 & 1584 of 2012, third petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 1585 of 2012 and petitioners 2 to 4 and respondents 2 and 3 in Crl. R.P. No. 1586 of 2012 are the accused persons who are running such nursing institutions. After investigation a final report was laid alleging commission of offences, as aforesaid, against the revision petitioners.

(2.) The revision petitioners filed petition under section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge on the ground that the charge against them is groundless. Essentially, the common contention was that the colleges in which the concerned de-facto complainants were admitted do have recognition from the Government of Karnataka and also the Karnataka Nursing Council. The further contention was that the de-facto complainants quit their studies on account of non-availability of educational loan and that they had not promised to arrange the educational loan for them.

(3.) In the context of the contentions it is relevant to note that earlier, the revision petitioners herein had approached this court by filing petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending against each of them. Criminal Miscellaneous Cases 180 and 210 of 2011, filed by the accused in C.C. Nos. 2867 of 2005 and 3486 of 2006 respectively, were disposed of as per order dated 9.2.2011, produced as Annexure-A6 in Crl. R.P. No. 1585 of 2012. Criminal Miscellaneous Cases seeking similar prayers filed by the accused in C.C. Nos. 3176 of 2005 and 458 of 2007 such as, Crl.M.C. Nos. 1156, 1162, 1163 and 1164 of 2011 were disposed of by order dated 8.4.2011, produced as Annexure-A3 in Crl. R.P. No. 1583 of 2012. Annexures-A6 and A3 referred above, would reveal that, virtually, this Court declined to invoke the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and only permitted the revision petitioners herein to take up the plea of discharge at the appropriate stage. It was, thereafter, that the revision petitioners have filed petitions, taking up the plea of discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. in the respective calender cases, that resulted in the impugned orders.