IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1618 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR 218/01 DTD 28.3.01 OF JFCM-III, PUNALUR PETITIONER: --------------- CHELLAMMA, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GR.I.,CORPORATION OF KOCHI KOCHI, RESIDING AT 'ARUNABHA', KUNNICODE P.O., PIN-691 508, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (CB CID), KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,HIGH COURT BUILDING ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.M.C.No.1618 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused No.7 in Annexure-III F.I.R (Crime No.218/2001) of Punalur Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471, 120 B and 511 of 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the above proceedings pending against her in the said crime. 2. The above crime was registered by Punalur police on March 28, 2001 on the basis of a complaint preferred by Mr. Peter Savage on behalf of Nat West Bank and HSBC Bank in England. A copy of the said complaint is on record as Annexure-I. 3. It is revealed from the records that one Smt. Sara Williams (Accused No.1) had allegedly taken a life insurance policy for 2,00,000 pounds from HSBC bank in London. She had paid premium only for the month of June and July, 2000. Thereafter, a death certificate was allegedly produced before 2 Crl.M.C.No.1618/08 the bank in London informing that Smt. Sara Williams had passed away on October 12, 2000 at Punalur in Kerala. In fact she had not. According to the complainant, the said false death certificate was produced before the Bank with a view to collect the insurance amount. 4. To make a long story short, the police after registration of the crime, started investigation. In the course of the investigation, petitioner who was working as Junior Health Inspector Gr-I at Punalur Municipal Office, was also arraigned as accused No.7 and investigation was continued. It is also the admitted position that investigation of the crime was later handed over to the Crime Branch C.I.D. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that she is totally innocent of the charge levelled against her. She contends that she could not have been implicated in the case at all, since in her capacity as Junior Health Inspector Gr-I, she had no role to play in issuance of the death certificate which is alleged to be false. She further contends that the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Punalur Municipality (Accused No.8) had issued the certificate on the basis of Annexure-VII application 3 Crl.M.C.No.1618/08 submitted by Smt. Elizebath Mathai. The application was submitted along with a letter from the Municipal Councilor of the ward concerned. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that accused No.8, the Registrar of Births and deaths, had issued Annexure-IX certificate on the basis of the documents referred to above. Petitioner was suspended from service in connection with the above case on March 29, 2001. But later, her suspension was revoked and she is now back in service. But the prayer in this petition is to quash the proceedings pending against her not only for the reason that police has not been able to gather any materials against her to be implicated in the case, but also for the reason that the police had not been able to complete the investigation even after lapse of such a long time. 7. In the statement filed by the Crime Branch C.I.D, Kollam dated July 21, 2008, the entire history of investigation has been elaborately stated. The investigating officer states that accused No.1, Smt. Sara Williams is reportedly living somewhere in England and her whereabouts are yet to be traced out with the help of Interpol. In the meanwhile accused 4 Crl.M.C.No.1618/08 No.2 had passed away in a hospital in London reportedly due to Bronchitis. 8. As regards implication of the petitioner, it is stated by the Officer that she was implicated on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating officer. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Sub Registrar, Births and Deaths in Punalur municipality. In her capacity as the Sub Registrar, she was bound to conduct a field enquiry, if an application was received for issue of a certificate of death. But, in this case, petitioner had failed to conduct the field enquiry and she had made only an armchair enquiry in furtherance of the common intention of the accused. Petitioner had in deviation of the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules, refused to conduct an enquiry. It is further stated that the “Birth and death application register” which was being maintained by the petitioner personally, had clearly revealed that the death of Smt. Sara Williams is seen inserted assigning Serial Number 3519(A) between Serial Numbers 3519 and 3520. The then Secretary of the Punalur Municipality had also stated before the police that the procedure followed for 5 Crl.M.C.No.1618/08 receipt of the application and issuance of the death certificate was also not proper. The signature and handwriting in the enquiry report prepared by the petitioner were sent for opinion to the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the report, it was opined that handwriting and signature were that of the petitioner. Similarly the entry made in the register at Serial No.3519 A referred to above was also found to be in the handwriting of the petitioner as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The officer further states that the statement of the witnesses and the documents collected, substantiate involvement of the petitioner in the case. 9. I have referred to the above aspects only to indicate that the contention of the petitioner that she is totally innocent does not appear to be prima facie sustainable. Anyhow, I hasten to add that this is only an expression of opinion based on the materials now available on record and the observations made above shall not be treated as a conclusion of this court. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency has been dragging its 6 Crl.M.C.No.1618/08 feet without any justifiable reason. He points out that more than 7 years have elapsed after registering the crime. Obviously, going by its own statement, the investigating agency has collected all relevant documents and materials for the purpose of investigation. But still, petitioner has been kept on tenter hooks subjecting her to untold hardship and misery. She had to remain out of service for nearly 7 years. Even though she is now reinstated, she has been denied promotions which fell due a long time ago. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that a direction may be issued to the investigating agency to file the final report before the jurisdictional court without any further delay. 11. In this context, it may be noticed that the investigating agency in its statement has stated that all legal steps have been taken with the help of the Interpol. But, according to the officer, investigation of the case can be completed only after getting the original documents from London and also after arresting accused No.1. In my view, the above stand taken by the investigating officer cannot be justified. It cannot be assumed that the investigating agency 7 Crl.M.C.No.1618/08 may not be in a position to nab the accused with the help of an outside agency, if situation so demands. Therefore respondents are directed to ensure that investigation is completed and report is filed as early as possible at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 12. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statement of the petitioner that the investigation is at its final stage, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in interfering with the investigation of the crime much less in quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner. Therefore, Crl.M.C is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all her contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) cl 8 Crl.M.C.No.1618/08