IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4651 of 2008() ------------------------- V.C.NO.2/2008.SCE OF THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.S. HARINARAYANAN, 39/5401, KOUSTHUBAM, ALAPPAT CROSS ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM.) BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4651 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 ORDER Against the petitioner, an FIR has been registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Ernakulam, as V.C.No.2/08. The said crime has been registered on the basis of an enquiry conducted earlier by the Vigilance Department. It is alleged that the petitioner has acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has been placed under suspension from service as per Annexure-I order. 2. The petitioner prays that the FIR registered against him may be quashed. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper enquiry had preceded the registration of the FIR. Hence it is prayed that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No. 4651 of 2008 -: 2 :- may be invoked to quash the investigation which has commenced on the basis of Annexure-A2 - FIR. 3. I am afraid, the prayer cannot be accepted. The FIR clearly shows that an enquiry has been conducted and such enquiry revealed that the petitioner had acquired disproportionate assets to his known sources of income during the 5 year period. The petitioner has a grievance that all the documents produced by him were not considered anxiously by the Vigilance Department before submitting the enquiry report and before registering the FIR. The First Information Statement reveals the skeletal details. I have, at the moment, no reason to assume that the allegations raised in the First Information Statement are not justified or do, at any rate, warrant interference by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has a grievance about the validity of the suspension. The dismissal of this Crl.M.C. holding that there is no reason to quash the FIR will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to challenge the order of suspension on appropriate ground, if any, available. 4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. SD/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 4651 of 2008 -: 3 :-