IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2218 of 2010() ------------------------- (FIR NO.7/2009 DATED 23.7.09 FILED AGAINST PETITIONER BY THE VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, SIU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). -------------- PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ---------------------- C.K.VISWANATHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.C.V.VASU, C2 L, MILLENNIUM APARTMENT, JAGATHY, THYCADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (RETIRED), LABOUR & RAHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS RESPONDENTS/STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. C.P.GOPAKUMAR, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (VIGILANCE), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.2218 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 9th September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the first accused in Crime No.7/2009 of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and further proceedings as against him. Second accused had filed Crl.M.C.2632/2009 with a similar prayer. As per order dated 30/7/2010 this court disposed that Crl.M.C directing the Police not to unnecessarily harass the petitioner stating that it is too early to consider whether there is a prima facie case against the petitioner or the allegation is false. It was also held that in case, the police after Crmc 2218/10 2 investigation files a final report charge sheeting the petitioner as accused and ground exists, petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedy by moving the appropriate court. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no material as against the petitioner and therefore, the case is to be quashed relying on various decisions enabling the Court to quash the FIR, considering the facts and nature of the case, I am not inclined to take a different view than what was taken by this court in Crl.M.C.2632/2010. 2. Petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final report, if after investigation petitioner is charge sheeted. It is also made clear that petitioner shall not be harassed in the name of Crmc 2218/10 3 investigation and case is to be investigated fairly and expeditiously and file a final report. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.