IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1856 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.950/2007 OF KUNDOTTY POLICE STATION PETITIONER: IST ACCUSED ----------------------- PANTHAKKAN MAMMADU, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, PANTHAKKAN, EDARIKODE POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 501. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDOTTY POLICE STATION, KUNDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. HAMZA, S/O.MOHAMMAD HAJI, KUTTANKAVIL HOUSE, KUNDOTTY POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1856 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the first of the three accused persons who face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 379 and 420 I.P.C. The de facto complainant had purchased a vehicle from the petitioner herein. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. On the security of that vehicle there was a financial transaction between the petitioner herein and M/s.ING Vysya Bank of which accused 2 and 3 are officials. According to the complainant, he had gone for Haj pilgrimage and was not available in India during the period 30/8/2007 to 17/9/2007. When he came back, he found that the vehicle which he had kept locked in his premises had been fraudulently removed. He made enquiries and came to know that it was the accused persons who allegedly removed the same clandestinely. Initially allegations were raised only against accused 2 and 3; but later, allegations have been raised implicating the petitioner/first accused also. A private complaint was filed arraying all the three accused persons and the said complaint was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.1856/08 2 Investigation is in progress. The vehicle has already been seized. It was released to the custody of the complainant, it is submitted. 2. The second accused had come to this court with the prayer to quash the F.I.R registered against him. Another Bench of this court by order dated 28/2/2008 in Crl.M.C.No.685/2008 had dismissed the said application to quash the F.I.R. Investigation is thus in progress. It is at that stage that this Crl.M.C has been filed and interim orders secured by the petitioner during the vacation of 2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. In the initial complaint before the police there was not a whisper of an allegation against the petitioner. Only to vex and harass the petitioner, allegations have been included against him subsequently in the private complaint filed. The petitioner may be saved from the undeserved trauma of unnecessary pendency of a criminal prosecution against him. The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail and he is on bail now, it is further submitted. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant had valid reasons to include the petitioner as an Crl.M.C.No.1856/08 3 accused in the complaint. The second accused before the court below had asserted that it was the petitioner who surrendered the vehicle to the second accused. It is in this context that the complainant alleges that the petitioner must also have been involved in the illegal action of taking away the vehicle from his possession and it being placed before/surrendered before the second accused. A letter of surrender dated 24/8/2007 is relied on by the second respondent who contends that the surrender of the vehicle had taken place on 4/9/2007. In these circumstances, it certainly deserves to be investigated whether the petitioner had any role in the removal of the car from the premises of the complainant and it coming into the hands of the second respondent later. At any rate, investigation has to be conducted to unearth the truth. 5. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. At the present stage it is not possible for this court to hazard an inference about the acceptability of the allegations. Certainly detailed investigation appears to be necessary. The vehicle is admittedly in the possession of the second accused. No one has a case that the complainant has surrendered it before the second respondent. The second accused relies on a letter of surrender dated 24/8/2007 under which the vehicle was allegedly Crl.M.C.No.1856/08 4 surrendered by the petitioner to the second accused on 04/09/2007. Did the petitioner have any role in the removal? The question certainly deserves to be investigated. I expect the police to conduct a proper investigation. In the circumstances of the case, it will certainly have to be investigated and ascertained whether the second accused is making use of any signed paper of the petitioner which was available with the second respondent. Comprehensive and exhaustive investigation will have to be conducted. At any rate I am not persuaded to agree that the police should be restrained from conducting an investigation. They should not be fettered in their mission to find out the truth and resolve the mystery of the crime. In any view of the matter I am satisfied that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C do not deserve to be invoked. 6. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner/first accused to challenge the final report, if ultimately a final report adverse to him were filed by the police. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1856/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.1856/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008