The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.937 of 2014 of Attingal Police Station for the offence registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner, who is conducting an educational consultancy service in the matter of overseas admission to students who are interested to pursue medical, under graduate medical courses and engineering courses etc. and that he had promised to the de facto complainant that he would arrange admission for her daughter for under graduate medical course in Russia and that he received Rs.2,75,000/- from the de facto complainant in this transaction and that he breached his promise and this has been done with the intention to deceive her and the accused has thereby committed the aforementioned offence.
3. Sri.J.S.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the case has been falsely foisted on the petitioner and that he is running an educational consultancy service and that the de facto complainant had approached him in June 2013 and remitted initially an amount of Rs.25,000/- and later an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for arranging medical admission for her daughter at Northern State Medical University Arkhangelsk at Russian Federation and that due to the failure of the de facto complainant and her daughter in producing the passport and eligibility certificates required for getting visa she could not secure admission for the academic year 2013-2014. That only on 06.11.2013 the daughter of the de facto complainant entrusted the requisite declaratory affidavit for admission for the academic year 2014-2015. The receipts evidencing the total payment of Rs.2,75,000/- as stated above are produced and marked as Annexures AI and AII and that the requisite declaratory affidavit was submitted by the applicant only on 06.11.2013 is also evident from Annexure AIII. That the police had threatened to take action against the petitioner at the instance of the de facto complainant whereupon he had filed Writ Petition No.18386 of 2014 against the police for harassment and it is only thereafter the Sub Inspector of Police registered the instant crime (Crime No.937 of 2014) on 01.07.2014 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He would submit that the transactions are purely based on the service that the petitioner offered through his consultancy outfit and it is a clear case where the applicant had not taken requisite admission for the year 2013-2014 and that the fact that it was not done within the time in the academic year 2013-2014 is evident from the applicant's own declaratory affidavit produced as Annexure AIII dated 06.11.2013. The learned counsel for petitioner would also submit that the de facto complainant's daughter had actually received admission letter as per Annexure A IV dated 09.06.2014 and that the visa in that regard was secured on 04.10.2014 and the said visa received on 04.10.2014 was communicated by the petitioner to the de facto complainant as per Annexure A V on 07.10.2014 itself. The petitioner is having the copy of the said visa issued on 04.10.2014 in Russian language and therefore the registry will not accept the production of that document in this proceedings. It is therefore averred that the de facto complainant's daughter ought to have reached Russia on or before 26.10.2014. But, the de facto complainant demanded return of Rs.2,25,000/- given to the petitioner. The petitioner says that the applicant now does not want to take admission in Russia and that is why they are demanding the refund of the money, which led to the registration of the instant crime.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted about the details of the registration of the case and further submitted that the final report in respect of the aforementioned crime was duly submitted by the investigating officer before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned on 31.08.2014. He would therefore submit that there is no necessity for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he will be arrested is now without any basis. The above said submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is recorded
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner was never aware about the submission of the final report and that the said fact is only now known to the petitioner on the basis of the submission of the Public Prosecutor. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no necessity of the arrest of the petitioner in view of the submission of the final report The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would await the receipt of summons from the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned on cognizance of the case by the Magistrate and then appear and seek regular bail. In this view of the matter, no further orders are necessary and the application stands closed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge