MUJEEB RAHMAN EDAKANDIYIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC.1023/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Thamarassery, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after called the Code).

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the case was taken on file on the basis of Annexure -1 private complaint filed by the second respondent herein alleging that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 341, 506(ii) of I.P.C and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. Sworn statement of the complainant and one witness were taken and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case as CC.1023/2013 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 341 & 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code against accused Nos.1 to 3 and under Section 120(B) and 506(ii) against the 4th accused as per Annexure -4 order. It is also mentioned in the same order that learned Magistrate has issued non - bailable warrants to accused numbers 1 to 3 and summons to 4th accused and issued direction to Passport Officer, Kozhikode, to take steps to impound the passport of accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 10(3) (e) and (h) of Indian Passport Act, 1967. It is alleged in the petition that immediately on knowing about the order, they moved this court by filing this application and obtained stay of operation of the order regarding impounding of passport. In spite of that, when first accused came to India and wanted to go abroad, his passport was taken by the Immigration Officer of the airport inspite of allowing the order of stay passed by this court and it was returned to them on the next day by the passport officer and thereafter he went abroad. According to the petitioners, even going by allegations in the complaint, entire transaction has taken place abroad and by virtue of Section 188 of the Code without getting prior sanction of the Central Government, the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the case and they wanted to quash the proceedings on that ground. Hence, this petition.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of Section 188 of the Code the Magistrate was wrong in taking cognizance of the case as even going by the allegations in the complaint, the entire transactions had taken place outside India. The counsel also submitted that if for any reason this court found that sanction need be produced later, then the Magistrate may be directed to grant bail to the petitioners on their surrender before the court and their personal appearance may be dispensed with.