IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 195 of 2005() ------------------------ CRIME NO.170/2004 OF IDUKKI POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. P.M. MANUEL, CHARAKUNNEL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. T.N. SASIDHARAN, PULLELIL HOUSE, VUNALAGIRI, IDUKKI. 3. N.M. JOHN, NADACKAL HOUSE, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 4. SCARIAH O.P., ONAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. ADDL.R3. M.M.SULAIMAN GENERAL SECRETARY IDUKKI DIST.CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.7571/2005 DATED 28/7/2008] BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS SRI.P.G.THAMPI SRI.C.HARIKUMAR FOR ADDL.R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.195 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioners have come to this court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer that Annexure C F.I.R registered against them at the Idukki police station wherein they are arrayed as accused numbers 1,2,4 and 5 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 46, 477A and 34 I.P.C may be quashed. Altogether five persons are arrayed as accused. The third accused has not come before me with this petition. The prayer of the petitioners is that the F.I.R, that is crime No.170/04 of Idukki police station in its totality may be set aside though the third accused has not come before this court as a petitioner. 2. This case has had a chequered history. The proceedings commenced with the additional third respondent herein (he was not originally arrayed as a respondent and as per order in Crl.M.A.No.7571/2005 he has been brought on the array as the additional third respondent) filing Annexure A complaint dated 13/5/2002 before the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Crl.M.C.No.195/05 2 Commissioner, Thrissur. Allegations were raised against the first accused who happened to be the President of the District Co-operative Bank as well as Accused 2 to 5 who happened to be the employees/officials of the Bank. The learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur took the same on file as Crl.M.P.No.271/2002 and thereupon the same was forwarded to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram to conduct an enquiry. As per the practice which was in force at the relevant time, the same was registered for conduct of a vigilance enquiry and an exhaustive enquiry was also conducted by the officials of the Vigilance Department. After completing such enquiry, Annexure B report was submitted by the Dy.S.P, VACB before the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur. On receipt of Annexure B enquiry report from the Dy.S.P, VACB, Idukki as per letter dated 6/8/2004, the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur acknowledged the same and directed issue of notice to the complainant, that is the additional third respondent herein. After giving notice to the additional third respondent and after considering the report of the Dy.S.P, VACB, Idukki, the learned Crl.M.C.No.195/05 3 Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur came to the conclusion that the same can be accepted and further action was directed to be dropped. With that the proceedings before the the learned Special Judge on the basis of Annexure A complaint came to an end. 3. It would appear that the matter had come to an end with the acceptance of Annexure B report by the learned Special Judge. But it is at that stage that the crime in question that is crime No.170/04 of Idukki police station is seen registered. This F.I.R is also seen registered on the basis of Annexure A complaint which was registered before the learned Special Judge C.M.P.No.271/02 which was sent to the Director of VACB for enquiry. It would appear that the VACB had sent a copy of Annexure B report to the Director General of Police for information and necessary action and the Director General of Police had forwarded the same to the District Superintendent of Police, Idukki who in turn had forwarded it to the Idukki police station through the Dy.S.P. It is accordingly that the Sub Inspector of Police of Idukki registered crime No.170/04 as Annexure C on 10/8/2004. Crl.M.C.No.195/05 4 4. The petitioners have come before this court with the prayer that further proceedings on the basis of Annexure C F.I.R may be quashed inasmuch as the learned Special Judge after considering the exhaustive report submitted by the Dy.S.P.,VACB, Idukki had taken the decision to drop further proceedings on the basis of Annexure A complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Annexure A complaint having already been subjected to detailed and exhaustive enquiry and investigation and verification and Annexure B report having been submitted by the Dy.S.P before the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur and the learned Judge having taken the decision to drop all further proceedings, it would be a traversity of justice to subject the accused persons to a further round of investigation on the basis of Annexure C crime registered at the Idukki police station. 5. Prima facie, the contention does appear to be inspiring as it is seen that the learned Special Judge has taken the decision to drop further proceedings on Annexure A complaint on the basis of Annexure B report of enquiry conducted by the Dy.S.P, VACB, Idukki. Crl.M.C.No.195/05 5 6. How and why is it that after the report was submitted by the Dy.S.P, VACB, Idukki on 06/08/2004 Annexure C F.I.R is registered on 10/8/2004? In the F.I.R, it is seen that there is reference to certain documents which have come into existence between Annexure A and Annexure C. Specific directions were issued by this court as per order dated 7/6/2005 (by Honourable Justice Mr.N.Sasidharan Nambiar) and later by me as per order dated 13/6/2007 to produce the various documents which are referred to in Annexure C as having come into existence between the date of Annexure A and the date of Annexure C. Surprisingly though Annexures A1, A2 and A3 were produced by the learned Director General of Prosecutions, it is significant that the precise documents referred to in Annexure C as having come into existence between Annexures A and C have not been placed before court for the perusal of the court. Though the learned Director General of Prosecutions was requested to explain this inadequacy, no valid explanation is seen offered whatsoever. 7. I am called upon to consider whether further proceedings by registration of a fresh F.I.R (crime No.170/04 of Idukki police station) is justified and the investigation on the Crl.M.C.No.195/05 6 basis of such F.I.R should be permitted to continue in the light of the order passed by the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur dropping all further proceedings in C.M.P.No.271/2002. In this context it is relevant that the State has not been able to place before me any documents to justify the registration of crime No.170/04 of Idukki police station on 10/8/2004 after the negative final report is submitted as Annexure B after investigation into the allegations raised in Annexure A. 8. The conclusion appears to be inevitable and inescapable in these circumstances that there is no merit or justification for registration of Annexure C F.I.R on 10/8/2004 after submission of Annexure B report to the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur on 06/08/2004 which was accepted by the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner as per order passed in C.M.P.No.271/2002. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not only standing on technicalities and that a detailed consideration of Annexure B report submitted by the Dy.S.P, VACB, Idukki must convince this court that in substance also Crl.M.C.No.195/05 7 nothing more remains to be or deserves to be investigated into. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken pains to take me through the 17 specific allegations raised in Annexure A complaint which were enquired into in detail. Specific conclusions were reached on all the 17 allegations in Annexure B. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out the general conclusions which were drawn in Annexure B and the recommendations which were made as per Annexure B. 10. For the sake of easy reference, I shall just extract the general conclusions which appear under headnote X and the recommendations which come under head X1 in Annexure B which was accepted by the learned Special Judge. I extract the same below: “X-General Conclusion During the enquiry it was revealed that SO 1 to 3 had not obtained any pecuniary advantages from the computerization work the construction of building, and the sale of vehicles and not attract the provisions of PC Act. Regarding the other allegations there is only minor irregularities were noticed in which action under co-operative Act and rules are necessitated. X1-Recommendation Crl.M.C.No.195/05 8 1. No action is recommended in allegations No.1,3,4,6,7,8,11,12 and 13 since those were not substantiated in evidence. 2. In allegation No.2 the expenditure for leakage Rs.12972/- may be recovered from Ferrum associated technologies since the repair was done within the defect liability period. 3. In allegation No.5 the claim of Rs.2300/- by w8 is false. Since the amount is very small departmental disciplinary action may be taken against him and the amount shall be recovered from him. 4. In allegation No.9 an amount of Rs.45/- may be recovered from SO5. 5. In allegation No.10 no action is recommended since recovery has been ordered by W58 in the arbitration case. 6. In allegation No.14 Director VACB has recommended to the Govt that the amount of loss sustained Rs.43892/- due to the delayed auction may be recovered proportionately from SO4 and his successor managers from the time of transfer till 23/3/2000, the date of auction. 6. In allegation No.15 the interest of the overdrawn amount may be charged from SO4 and W4. 7. In allegation No.16 SO3 had used 60 Kms for coming to the bank and departure on a holiday for his official duty. Hence a lenient view may be taken and no action is recommended. 8. In allegation No.17 Registrar of co- operative societies may be directed to take action under Section 68(1) of the Co-operatie Act may be taken.” 11. I have gone through Annexure B report in detail. I have particularly taken into consideration the specific conclusions reached by the investigating officer against each of Crl.M.C.No.195/05 9 the 17 specific allegations raised in Annexure A. I have also considered the general conclusions and recommendations which I have extracted above. Those specific conclusions against allegations 1 to 17, the general conclusions extracted above and the recommendations made by the Dy.S.P, VACB, Idukki have been accepted by the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur. In the light of these facts I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners do not deserve to be vexed with any further criminal investigation on the basis of the very same Annexure A lodged by the Additional third respondent before the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the light of Annexure B and the acceptance of Annexure B by the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, it is not necessary, nay impermissible to compel the petitioners/accused persons to stand the trauma of a criminal investigation afresh under Annexure C. 12. It is pertinent to note that the additional third respondent has, though he initially wanted to raise objections against the challenge against Annexure C F.I.R has no Crl.M.C.No.195/05 10 contention that he did not receive notice from the Special Judge after receipt of Annexure B report of enquiry. He has not admittedly challenged the decision of the Special Judge dropping the proceedings in Annexure A complaint on receipt of Annexure B report from the police. Similarly, the learned Director General of Prosecutions also has not been able to advance any tenable arguments justifying the registration of Annexure C and the continuance of proceedings on the basis of Annexure C. 13. I am, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur having accepted Annexure B report of the Dy.S.P, VACB, Idukki after exhaustive and thorough enquiry into Annexure A complaint, it is not necessary, proper or justifiable to compel the accused persons to face the trauma of further investigation on the basis of Annexure A complaint. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that if any further investigation were to be conducted on the basis of Annexure A, permission of the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner must have been sought for the conduct of any such further investigation/enquiry, the learned Crl.M.C.No.195/05 11 Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner having already accepted Annexure B and having taken the decision to drop all further proceedings on the basis of C.M.P.No.271/2002 registered before the learned Judge on the basis of Annexure A complaint. I find merit in that contention. 15. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer made in this Crl.M.C deserves to be allowed. The F.I.R registered as Annexure C deserves to be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) Annexure C F.I.R, that is crime No.170/04 registered at the Idukki police station against the petitioners and the third accused is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.195/05 12 Crl.M.C.No.195/05 13 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008