ORDER : Kauser Edappagath, J. These criminal miscellaneous cases have been filed to quash the final report in Crime No.314 of 2016 of Railway Police Station (Parassala), Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Railway Police (Parassala), Thiruvananthapuram registered the above crime against seven accused persons alleging offences punishable under Sections 370 (1), (2), (3), (5), 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC , Section 137(1)(a) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 . After investigation, the final report was filed against seven accused persons before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara alleging the above mentioned offences. The learned Magistrate received the final report on file and initiated committal proceedings as C.P.No.27 of 2019 since sessions offences were involved. 3. The crux of the allegation in the final report in short is that the accused Nos.1 to 3 being the Councillor, Purchase Manager and Placement Co-ordinator respectively of the company IL & FS Ltd., trafficked 145 people including 16 juveniles from Odisha State to Kerala on 20/10/2016 enticing job at the Kanyakumari Exports (4 th accused company) and thereby exploited them. It is further alleged that the documents were falsely created to make it appear that the juveniles mentioned above have in fact attained the age of majority. 4. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 1196 of 2020 is the accused No.3 and the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 66 of 2020 is the accused No.7. These criminal miscellaneous cases have been filed on the ground that no offence is attracted against them. 5. I have heard Smt.Sruthy N. Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1196 of 2020, Sri.Ranju Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.66 of 2020 and also Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations in the final report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out any case against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1196 of 2020 submitted that the petitioner is only an employee of IL & FS Company, which was authorised to impart training to the employees and in the absence of the company in the party array, he cannot be made an accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1196 of 2020 submitted that the petitioner is only an employee of IL & FS Company, which was authorised to impart training to the employees and in the absence of the company in the party array, he cannot be made an accused. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are materials on record to connect the petitioners with the crime, and when a prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. 7. A reading of the final report would reveal that CW1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Parassala, received information that around 150 persons including juveniles were being transported in coach Nos. S7 and S8 of the Ananthapuri Express train from Chennai to Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of exploitation. Based on the said information, he went and inspected the bogies of the above train on 20.10.2016 at 11.30 a.m., where he found 145 persons, including 16 juveniles, without valid travel documents. Accordingly, he registered FIR. According to the prosecution, during the investigation, it was revealed that the above mentioned persons were brought by IL & FS Ltd. from Odisha for the purpose of employment at accused No.4 company and with intention of exploiting the juveniles by engaging them in the hazardous work. It is alleged that the documents were falsely created to make it appear that the juveniles had attained the age of majority. According to the petitioner, the IL & FS Ltd. is one of the leading infrastructure development and finance institution in the country and it is a nationally recognized skills training provider which is empanelled with various departments of Central and State Government Ministries. The Company is one of the leading implementing agencies of Integrated Skill Development Scheme of Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. The object of the scheme is to provide training to unemployed youth for gainful job opportunities in textile and apparel sector in the country. It is contended that 145 persons allegedly trafficked from Odisha to Kerala were trained during August-September, 2016 by the Company at its training centres approved by the Ministry and after the completion of training and assessment, the company assisted these trainees in obtaining placement in Kanyakumari Exports Pvt. Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (4 th accused). It is contended that 145 persons allegedly trafficked from Odisha to Kerala were trained during August-September, 2016 by the Company at its training centres approved by the Ministry and after the completion of training and assessment, the company assisted these trainees in obtaining placement in Kanyakumari Exports Pvt. Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (4 th accused). It is in the backdrop of the factual matrix, the allegations raised in the case require consideration. 8. A plain reading of Section 370 of IPC makes it clear that to constitute the offence trafficking of a person, one should recruit, transport, harbour, transfer, or receive any girl or woman for the purpose of exploitation by using threat, or using force, or any other form of coercion, or by abduction, or by practising fraud, or deception, or by abuse of power, or by inducement. The expression “exploitation” includes any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs. 9. CWs 7 to 22 are the victims. I went through their statements. All of them consistently stated that they are natives of Odisha and had undergone training at IL & FS Skill School. They further stated that they came to Kerala in train on the basis of a promise given by the training manager of the Company namely Renji Narayana Prasad that they would be provided with jobs at Kanyakumari Exports (4 th accused) in Kerala. They further stated that the accused No.1 accompanied them in the train. This is the sum and substance of their statements. There is absolutely no allegation in their statements that they were procured for the purpose of exploitation or that the petitioners resorted to threat, force or any other form of coercion, or inducement on them. It appears from their statements that they voluntarily came from Odisha to Kerala seeking job. There is no case for the prosecution in the final report that the petitioners recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received the victims either by using threat, or using force, or coercion, or by abduction, or by practising fraud, or deception, or by abuse of power, or by inducement. There are no allegations of any sort of any exploitation as well. In the absence of any such allegations, charge under Section 370 of IPC does not get attracted. 10. There are no allegations of any sort of any exploitation as well. In the absence of any such allegations, charge under Section 370 of IPC does not get attracted. 10. Section 468 of the IPC provides that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 471 of IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. The offence of forgery is defined in Section 463 of IPC . As per Section 463, the making of a false document with any of the intents mentioned therein constitutes forgery. Section 470 of the IPC defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The condition precedent for offences under Sections 468 & 471 of IPC is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is the making of a false document. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the petitioners have made any false document. The prosecution allegation is that documents were falsely created by the petitioners to make it appear that juveniles had attained the age of majority. The victims, in their statements, stated that they gave photocopies of their Aadhaar cards, photos as well as transfer certificates obtained from the school to the representatives of IL & FS Ltd. The statements of the Headmasters/Headmistress of the schools where some of the victims had studied were recorded. Their statements would show that the date of births in the transfer certificates issued by the school authorities were corrected. It is the prosecution version that this was done by the petitioners to make it appear that the victims had attained the age of majority. Even if the said version of the Headmasters/Headmistress is believed in toto, it would only show that the date of births in the copies of the transfer certificates were corrected. But, there is absolutely no material to show who has done it. That apart, no scientific evidence has been collected by the investigating agency to confirm whether actually the date of births in the transfer certificates were forged or not. But, there is absolutely no material to show who has done it. That apart, no scientific evidence has been collected by the investigating agency to confirm whether actually the date of births in the transfer certificates were forged or not. The records would show that the persons who were allegedly below the age of majority by the police were sent back to Odisha and the District Child Welfare Committee, Khordha, Odisha conducted an enquiry regarding those 16 persons handed over to them by CWC, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure E is the report of the District Child Welfare Committee, Khordha, Odisha. It would show that their age as per the school certificates are more than eighteen years and they are eligible for training and placement anywhere in India. Therefore, the offences under Sections 468 & 471 of IPC also cannot be attracted. Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 , addresses the exploitation of a child employee. This section specifically focuses on cases where a child is forced into the employment and their earnings are either withheld or used by someone else for their own benefit. There is absolutely no such case for the prosecution. Therefore, the offence under Section 79 of the JJ Act is not attracted. 11. What remains is Section 137(1) of the Railways Act. It is attracted when a person enters or remains in any carriage on a railway or travels in a train in contravention of Section 55 of the Railways Act. Section 55 prohibits anyone from entering or remaining in any carriage on a railway for the purpose of travelling without a proper pass or ticket. The prosecution version is that out of 145 persons, only 119 persons were travelling with tickets. Even if the said version is true, the offence would not be attracted against the petitioners at all as they have not accompanied the victims, rather it was the accused No.1 who had accompanied the victims. 12. The upshot of the above discussion is that even if the entire allegations in the final report together with the materials collected during investigation which form part of the final report are believed in its entirety, no offences under Sections 370 , 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC , Section 137(1)(a) of the Indian Railways Act and Section 79 of the JJ Act are made out against the petitioners. It is trite that where the allegations in the FIR, final report and the evidence collected in support of the same during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused, the High Court can exercise its wholesome power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners to continue. Hence, all further proceedings in Crime No.314 of 2016 of Railway Police Station (Parassala), Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The Crl.M.Cs are, accordingly, allowed.