DROUPATHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner who has been summoned as a witness to quash Annexure VI summons issued to the petitioner to appear and give evidence under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint against the 1st accused and others including the present petitioner earlier, alleging offences under Sections 420 465, 466, 468 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they have induced him to part with money and thereafter forged certain documents and denied payment of amount to him and thereby they have committed the above said offences. After taking sworn statement, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Thrissur had taken cognizance of the case as CC No.208/2011 against all the accused persons including the present petitioner who was arrayed as 3rd accused in the case and all the accused including the petitioner challenged the proceedings of taking cognizance of the case against them as Cr.M.C. 1364/2012 and this court by Annexure IV order quashed the proceedings as against the accused Nos.3 to 5 who includes the present petitioner also and found that offence under Sections 466 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code will not lie and at the most offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code alone will lie and quashed the complaint to that extent also as against to all the accused persons.

(3.) It is thereafter that the 2nd respondent filed an additional witnesses list showing 5 witnesses including the present petitioner as Annexure III and according to the petitioner, without application of mind, court below had issued summons to all the witnesses including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the examination of petitioner is not required to prove the case of the complainant and the purpose for which she has been summoned can be achieved by examining other witnesses cited by the complainant himself. Further she is aged 78 years. Since she happened to be the mother of one of the accused who is the Managing Director of the company,as a pressure tactics, she has been summoned as a witness. Since there was no allegation against her regarding her part in the day-to-day administration of the 1st accused company, case against her was quashed. So according to the petitioner no purpose will be served for by examining the petitioner and she prayed for quashing the order which ended in issuing Annexure VI summons.