The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.1547/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva. Crime in the said case was registered by the police under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC, on the basis of a communication received from the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) dated 14.04.2005. It is not known why registration of the crime was delayed for five years. The crime was registered by the police only in 2010. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused, Jomy Varghese, created a false National Trade Certificate with the help and assistance of the other accused, for the purpose of going abroad for employment. Annexure-C is the copy of the communication received by the police from the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence). This shows that the alleged document was created by one Aravind, a resident of Aluva. The petitioner herein is not the said person mentioned in Annexure-C. The petitioner is now being prosecuted on the allegation that the alleged National Trade Certificate was forged at the “Aravind Travels”, at Aluva, and that the said concern belongs to the petitioner herein. The complaint is definite that the certificate was created by one Aravind, and not at Aravind Travels. Any way, the police now alleges that it was created at the said concern by name Aravind Travels, that this concern belongs to the petitioner herein, and that is why the police arraigned him as the 2nd accused, as the person who forged the alleged document. The 2nd accused now seeks orders quashing the prosecution as against him, on the ground that there is absolutely no material as against him at the hands of prosecution. 2. This Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to submit a report, on instructions, from the concerned Station House Officer, regarding the materials collected by the police to connect this petitioner with the said Aravind Travels. Of course, the Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva, accordingly, submitted a report on 29.10.2014. This report does not show what is the connection between the petitioner and Aravind Travels, Aluva.
The report also does not answer the question put by the court; what materials are there to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime or with Aravind Travels, Aluva? The definite case of the petitioner is that he has no connection whatever with Aravind Travels, and that the said concern belongs to somebody else. This allegation is not seen answered by the Sub Inspector. Now, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that on a perusal of the case diary, nothing definite could be found to connect the petitioner herein with the said Aravind Travels at Aluva. It appears that the police arraigned the petitioner herein simply on the basis of a confession made by the first accused to the police during investigation. Of course, the confession made by a co- accused is admissible, provided, it was made to somebody other than police. Confession made to police during investigation by one accused will not bind the other accused, in any manner. This confession apart, there is absolutely no material at the hands of the police to arraign this petitioner, or to prosecute him, or to connect him with Aravind Travels, Aluva. In such a situation, continuance of prosecution as against the petitioner herein without any basis will be abuse of legal process. The prosecution as against him is thus liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioner herein as the 2nd accused in C.C.No.1547/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case will proceed against other accused Nos.1 and 3. The petitioner will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioner will stand discharged.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd