IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(Crl.).No. 1599 of 2011(Q) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER -------------------- P.SUJANAPAL, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE SEKHARAN, PALANGADATH HOUSE, AREEKKAD.P.O., NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 027. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY-PIN-682 011. 2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM-PIN-682 016. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM-PIN-682 016. 4. SHAHUL HAMEED.M.P., S/O.NOORUDHEEN, MOTHIRAPARAMBATH, M.P.MANZIL, VAIDYARANGADI, RAMANATTUKARA POST, KOZHIKODE-PIN-673 633. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695 001. *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED *R6: RAJA GOPALAN.M., S/O.MANIKAM, AGED 53 YEARS, KOCHUKATTUNGAL HOUSE, MUNICIPAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/10/11 IN IA NO.16241/2011 R1 TO R3, R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R4 BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE ADDL.R6 BY ADV.SRI.C.A.CHACKO THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(CR)NO.1599/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CC NO.624 OF 2009 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 15/10/2009. P2 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.740 OF 2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 31/10/2009. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/9/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.24192/2010 P4 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED NIL SHOWING THAT THE PETITIONER UNDERWENT BYPASS SURGERY FROM MIMS HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE. P5 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.370/2011 DATED 01/2/2011 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION. P6 COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT CRIME NO.370/2011 DATED 19/3/2011 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/9/2010 SENT BY THE BAR COUNCIL TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION. P8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR VIGILANCE DATED 18/4/2011. P9 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/4/2011. P5(A) COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF COLUMN 12 OF EXHIBIT P5 FIR P6(A) COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT 6. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIMENO.712/2010 DATED 18/9/2010 OF THE KASABA POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE. R4(A) COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION IN CRIME NO.845 OF 2010 DATED 11/11/2010 OF THE KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. R4(B) COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.5 OF 2011 DATED 01/1/2011 OF THE KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. R4(C) COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.211 OF 2011 DATED 18/4/2011 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION (CRIME ), KOZHIKODE. R4(D) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/1/2011 IN C.M.P.NO.348/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. R4(E) COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 9/10/2010. /TRUE COPY/ sts P.S.TO.JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- O.P.(Crl.)No.1599 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 Judgment The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.370 of 2011 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The crime was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 466, 469, 471 and 500 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after registration of the FIR the petitioner was arrested from Calicut and was produced before the learned Magistrate as per Ext.P6. He was arrested on 18.3.2011 and was released on bail only on 23.3.2011. The learned counsel submits that the crime was registered on the allegation made by the complainant therein that a document was forged by the petitioner and was produced by the petitioner in WP(C) No.24192/2010. The judgment in WP(C) No.24192/2010 (Ext.P3) was pronounced by the Division Bench on 28.9.2010. There is no mention of any such document having been produced by the petitioner herein or by any other person. Exts.P1 to P4 referred to therein have nothing to do with the document alleged to have been forged by OP(Crl.) 1599/11 2 the petitioner. A reply/counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in that writ petition also does not show any such document produced by him. Therefore, it is not known wherefrom the complainant in Ext.P5 could get the idea of such a document having been filed before this court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents now submits that such a document was handed over by the counsel who was appearing for the petitioner in Ext.P3 to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is inconceivable how based on such an allegation a crime could be registered and cause the accused mentioned in that complaint detained. There is no mention in the judgment in Ext.P3 also regarding any such document having been produced or at least shown to the court in the course of the argument. It is important to note that in the remand report (Ext.P6) the police officer has noted that the cause of action arose on 28.9.2010 in the High Court when a false document was produced. No such false document had seen the light of the day. If any such document was produced before this court or at least shown bfore this court in course of the argument, it would have been so mentioned. It is comprehensible OP(Crl.) 1599/11 3 how such a complaint could be filed before the police and how registering FIR based on such a complaint on a person could be arrested and detained. 3. It is also worthwhile to note that one of the offences mentioned is 500 IPC in respect of which also FIR is seen to have been registered obviously oblivious of the fact that there is a clear bar under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. As such it is a case where there is absolutely no material even to register the crime. As such, further proceedings in Crime No.370 of 2011 would be a sheer abuse of the process of the court. Hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, the entire proceedings in Crime No.370 of 2011 of Ernakulam Central Police Station is quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to initiate legal proceedings if he is so advised. The Original Petition is allowed as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd OP(Crl.) 1599/11 4 OP(Crl.) 1599/11 5