The accused in Crime No.714/2013 of Nedumbassery Airport Police Station, presently pending as C.C. No.1194/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - II, Aluva, has come up with an petition under Section 482, for getting Annexure B Final report in Crime 714/2013 and the consequent proceedings in C.C. No.1194/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court- II, Aluva, quashed. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 16.5.2014 by 4.30 p.m., while the de-facto complainant with her husband and children reached Kochi International Airport from New York and were waiting in the queue for immigration clearance, the petitioner who was standing towards the rear end of the queue, attempted to come in front of the queue. The said act was questioned by the husband of the de-facto complainant, which has resulted in exchange of abusive words in filthy language. It is also alleged that the petitioner has abused the de-facto complainant, her husband and her kids. Consequently, the crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the final report has been filed and presently the matter is pending as C.C. No.1194/2013.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the present crime is nothing, but a counter blast to Crime No.713 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354A and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, which has been charge sheeted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - II, Aluva and pending trial as C.C. No.748/2013. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it was the de-facto complainant herein, who abused the petitioner and that the husband of the de-facto complainant had outraged the modesty of the petitioner herein and consequently, Crime No.713/2014 was registered. The said crime was registered at 5.15 a.m. on the date of incident, whereas the crime No.714/2013 was registered by 11.00 a.m. on the date of incident. It seems that there are allegations against the petitioner. Presently, it cannot be said whether those allegations will constitute an offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, especially when, direct evidence is required with regard to the same, for which trial has to be held. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the de-facto complainant in Crime No.714/2013 is abroad and is not available for trial, whereas the petitioner, who is actually aggrieved, has to roam around the court premises on posting dates. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that by giving a direction to the court below to have an expeditious disposal of the C.C. No.1194/2013 of the court below.
The Court below is directed to dispose of C.C. No.1194/2013 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from today. In case, the de-facto complainant or other witnesses are not available as they are out of station, the court below shall avoid their examination and after examining the other witnesses, the court below can close the evidence. This court has issued notice to the second respondent, who is the de-facto complainant herein, twice and those notices were returned with an endorsement, “left India”. The court below shall take note of that aspect also. The court below shall liberally grant exemption for the personal appearance of the petitioner and personal appearance should be insisted only on the date on which her presence is required.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge