IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1988 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.806/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------- JOMON PUTHANPURACKAL, S/O.KURIAKOSE, PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, NEENDOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENTS: STATE & RESPONDENTS 1-2: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CBI HEADQUARTERS, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. SRI.R.M.KRISHNA, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SER-II, CBI HEADQUARTERS, BLOCK NO.5, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R2 & R3 SRI.A.X.VARGHESE FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.A.V.JOJO FOR ADDL.R4 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON 26-08-2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 26-08-2008 ORDER In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner claims himself to be a public interest litigant seeks to quash Annexure -C order dated 5-2-2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam dismissing his application (C.M.P. No. 806/08) seeking certain directions to the C.B.I. to conduct further investigation in the “Sr. Abhaya Case” pursuant to the narco analysis test reports. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, observing that the petition was another vain attempt to somehow cling on to the matter, and placing reliance on the observations of this Court in the judgment dated 11-01-2008 in W.P.C. 35590 of 2007 dismissed the application warning the petitioner that at present the Magistrate is not mulcting the Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:2:- petitioner with costs for filing the petition in a case where the petitioner has no locus standi. 2. I heard Sr. Advocate Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Adv. Sri. M.V.S. Nampoothiri, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and Adv. Sri. A.X. Varghese appearing for the father of deceased Sr. Abhaya. 3. Sri.K. Ramakumar, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions in support of the revision:- The petitioner is a public activist and a prominent worker in the field of human rights. He is also the convener of “Sr. Abhaya Case Action Council”. He has been spearheading the case of Sr. Abhaya ever since 31-3-1992. It was the petitioner who was instrumental for the investigation of the case which was eventually taken over by the C.B.I. The petitioner Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:3:- in his capacity as the covnenor of the aforesaid action council had been taking various steps both before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam as well as this Court. Unfortunately, even after the C.B.I. took over the investigation and made some progress the proceedings before court were tardy and were moving at a snail's pace. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner filed C.M.P. 806 of 2008 before the court below for a direction to the C.B.I. for further investigation based on the narco analysis test report and to file a progress report before court. The learned Magistrate went wrong in extracting certain observations in the order of this Court in Crl.M.P. 2154 of 2005 filed by the petitioner and treated those observations as adverse remarks against the petitioner. This Court had clarified in a review petition filed by the petitioner that they were not adverse observations Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:4:- made against the petitioner and that this Court was only noticing certain allegations against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate was clearly in error in holding that this Court had held that the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter. As a member of the public he had sufficient locus to move the Magistrate. This Court had in Nandakumar v. State - 2008 (2) KLT 913 had expanded the horizon of locus standi in the matter of withdrawal from criminal prosecution. When the investigation by the former investigating officer was being stifled by high level intervention resulting in culpable inertia on the part of the present officer in- charge of the investigation , the petitioner was only attempting to alert the C.B.I. By dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner the Chief Judicial Magistrate has virtually abdicated his duties. The petitioner had been putting up a relentless battle Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:5:- against the forces which were responsible for the tragic death of Sister Abhaya. It was the petitioner who fought the case for the past 16 years and whatever investigation worth its name has been conducted only after the petitioner came to the scene and started crusading the cause. Hence, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is liable to be set aside. 4. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. It may be true that the petitioner had intervened in the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and before this Court. It may also be true that during times when the investigation before the concerned agency or proceedings before Court were quiescent the petitioner might have triggered the matter by filing appropriate petitions before the court. It is easier for any person to intervene in matters involving contemporary public importance and activate Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:6:- the investigating agency and/or the court to ensure that justice to the aggrieved is quickened. But that does not mean that such persons can, under the garb of espousing a public cause and wearing the mantle of a crusader, offset or supplant the statutory functionaries which have will defined roles to play in a democratic governance. Merely because courts have in the past entertained certain petitions filed by the petitioner, it does not mean that the petitioner is an indispensable link in the administration of justice or that the system without the petitioner will spell a collapse. As mentioned earlier, anybody can masquerade as a public spirited citizen and meddle with any issue of public importance and indulge in self aggrandizement without being detected. It is very often difficult to gauge the motives of such persons. It is a disturbing development that some men wearing pro Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:7:- bono publico veil indulge in scandalising individuals, constitutional functionaries, other dignitaries and even judges either with flippant or motivated write-ups and provocative mock challenges. Courts should be sharp enough to pierce the veil of such dangerous persons and nip their proclivities in the bud in the larger interest of the society rather than ignoring them as scurrilous, influential or incorrigible. Such mock fighters are real foes of the mankind and unless they are identified and their vicious tendencies curbed, they might be let loose among the unsuspecting public with formidable potential to do incalculable harm to the society at large. 5. This petitioner has been found to be indulging in abusing the weapon of public interest litigation with a view to use it only for publicity. In Jomon Puthenpurackal v. Lokh Ayukta - ILR 2005 (4) Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:8:- Kerala 813 a Division Bench of this Court had noticed the transgressions indulged in by the petitioner in the name of public interest litigation more for publicity than for any bona fide objective. He was found guilty of suffering from a “publicity mania ” by the Kerala Lok Ayukata and making unwarranted and untrue statements through television channels targetting personalities and institutions. 6. In the very same case the petitioner styling himself as the convenor of “Sister Abhaya Case Action Council”, filed Writ Petition as O.P. 3151 of 2001 seeking directions against the Union of India to conduct an enquiry into the alleged misuse of office and interference with the investigation by Advocate Sri. K.P. Satheesan who was the then Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. Observing that the petitioner was seeking enquiry out of personal vengeance and relying Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:9:- on the decisions of the Apex Court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others - AIR 1991 SC 420 and Chhetria Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. and Others - AIR 1990 SC 2060 this Court held that the luxury enjoyed by maintaining such frivolous litigation by busy bodies was at the expense of bona fide litigants waiting for years and years to justice from Court and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot be permitted to be misused. This Court, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Legal Service Authority of the State and directed that if the amount of costs was not paid within two months , it shall be recovered from the petitioner by resort to revenue recovery proceedings and paid to the Legal Services Authority of the State. Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:10:- 7. Merely because at some point of time in the past certain petitions filed by the petitioner were entertained by courts, he cannot claim the status of an “all knowing super investigating wizard” competent even to advise the C.B.I. It is said that the revels in filing petitions before various forums targetting persons and personalities and giving wide publicity to the same in the print and electronic media. His stubborn disinclination to leave this case and indulge in litigative persistence with an eye on publicity is amply demonstrated by the various petitions filed by him. Unbridled expeditions and adventurism by such dangerous and meddlesome interlopers should be checked. Otherwise, Courts will be encouraging persons masquerading as good Samaritans to perpetrate injustice and foment evil and thereby torment personalities who do good work for the Crl.M.C. 1988 of 2008 -:11:- betterment of the society. I fully endorse the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate and dismiss this Crl.M.C. Dated, this the 26th day of August 2008. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.