Gregory John vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.1495/2023 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, where he is arrayed as the 11th accused. The said case arose out of Crime No.476 of 2023 of Panangad Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 22(b), 8, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

According to the prosecution, all the accused had conspired to deal with narcotic drugs. Based on the aforesaid conspiracy, the sixth accused collected money from accused Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as directed by the third accused, and handed it over to him, who in turn gave it to the second accused and later to the first accused to procure narcotic drugs and the accused together committed the offences under sections 22(b), 8, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act.

Sri. Mohammed Youseef, the learned Senior Counsel, contended that the prosecution allegations against the petitioner are totally false, and he has been falsely roped in as an accused. According to the learned Senior Counsel, no materials are available with the prosecution to implicate the petitioner in any crime. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is a youngster whose only default was to hand over an amount of Rs.2,300/- through a bank transaction when the third accused had sought for a personal loan. It was further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the activities of the third accused or the other accused and he is totally innocent.

Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the prosecution has been initiated on concrete materials available, which was revealed during the investigation as the accused were all indulging in criminal activities. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the bank transactions between the petitioner and the other accused had been revealed during the investigation and whether it was a personal loan or whether it was for procuring narcotic drugs are all matters which could be decided only after trial. It was also submitted that it is too premature a stage for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction or to regard it as an abuse of the process of court.

On a consideration of the contentions advanced, it is noticed that the investigation has revealed that the petitioner had paid amounts to the sixth accused. The prosecution alleges that the said amount was paid for procuring narcotic drugs. The payment of money into the account of the sixth accused by various other accused was almost around the same time. Whether those transactions are all personal loans is not a matter which this Court can determine at this juncture. Suffice it to say, that the prosecution has collected sufficient materials to implicate the petitioner in the crime.

The exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. can arise only when the admitted allegations do not make out any of the offences. Disputed questions cannot be decided in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a settled proposition that under S.482, Cr.P.C., Courts should not embark upon a process to decide disputed questions of fact. The materials adduced by the prosecution are sufficient to proceed against the accused. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations can be decided only after trial. Having regard to the limited jurisdiction exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C, I am of the view that interference at this stage is not legally proper.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case and it is dismissed.