FIR is not an encyclopaedia: Kerala High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI THURSDAY THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 15TH MAGHA 1942 Crl.MC.No.4835 OF 2017(D CRIME NO.18 2016 OF VACB KOZHIKODE Kozhikode PETITIONERS ACCUSED 1 & 2 S O.AMMAD AGED 47 YEARS PILASSERY HOUSE KANNADIKKAL VENGERI P.O. KOZHIKODE 673 010 S O.GANGADHARAN AGED 40 YEARS SUDARSANAM PANOLI MARIKUNNU P.O. KOZHIKODE 673 012 RESPONDENTS STATE & COMPLAINANT STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI 682 031 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU UNIT KOZHIKODE 673 001 R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI B JAYASURYA SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.02.2021 THE COURT ON 04.02.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING R.NARAYANA PISHARADI J Crl.M.C.No.48317 Dated this the 4th day of February 2021 O R D E R The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case registered as V.C.No.18 2016 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption BureauKozhikode. The offences alleged against the petitioners in Annexure I FIR are under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code The prosecution case is that the first and the second accused who were officiating as Secretaries of the Feroke Grama Panchayat during the period from 01.01.2012 to 02.07.2013 and 30.07.2014 to 31.07.2015 respectively hatched a criminal conspiracy with the third accused and pursuant to such conspiracy they abused their official position and granted building permit without the approval of the Town Planning Officer to the third accused in respect of a building constructed in wet land and that they did not impose building tax at three fold rate of the normal rate which should have been imposed and thereby caused huge loss to the Government and corresponding pecuniary gain to the third accused. The case against the petitioners was registered after conducting a preliminary enquiry by the VACB on the basis of the facts revealed in a surprise check This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners for quashing Anneuxre I FIR. learned Public Prosecutor Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the In Amish Devgan v. Union of India :1 SCC 1 the Apex Court has held as follows “The FIR is not an encyclopaedia disclosing all facts and details relating to the offence. The informant who lodges the report of the offence may not even know the name of the victim or the assailant or how the offence took place. He need not necessarily be an eye witness. What is essential is that the information must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information must provide basis for the police officer to suspect commission of the offence. Thus at this stage it is enough if the police officer on the information given suspects though he may not be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. Truthfulness of the information would be a matter of investigation and only thereupon the police will be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise. .......... even if information does not furnish all details it is for the investigating officer to find out those details during the course of investigation and collect necessary evidence. Thus the information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigating machinery with a view to collect necessary evidence and thereafter taking action in accordance with law The true test for a valid FIR ...... is only whether the information furnished provides reason to suspect the commission of an offence which the police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate. The questions as to whether the report is true whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence whether the accused is named or whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation are all matters which are alien to consideration of the question whether the report discloses commission of a cognizable offence”. NO.23435 OF 2012 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 30.10.2012 FILE IN I.A.NO.13685 2012 IN WP(C) NO.23435 OF A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2013 IN WP(C) NO.23435 OF 2012 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 06.03.2012 CONTAINING THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED BY THE FEROKE GRAMA A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE FEROKE GRAMA A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER KOZHIKODE A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26.05.2015 IN WP(C) NO.15333 OF 2015 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 08.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY FEROKE GRAMA PANCHAYAT A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ADANGAL REGISTER MAINTAINED AT THE FEROKE VILLAGE OFFICE RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.S TO JUDGE 

Summary: FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that it fails to provide all the information regarding the commission of a crime. Even if information does not furnish all details, it is for the investigating officer to find out those details during the course of investigation and collect necessary evidence. This principle was upheld by the Kerala High Court presided by J. R. Narayana Pisharadi in the case of Abdunnasar T. vs. State of Kerala [Crl.MC.No.4835 OF 2017(D)]. In the instant case, the offences alleged against the petitioners in FIR are under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case contended that, the first and the second accused, who were officiating as Secretaries of the Feroke Grama Panchayat during the period from 01.01.2012 to 02.07.2013 and 30.07.2014 to 31.07.2015 respectively, hatched a criminal conspiracy with the third accused and pursuant to such conspiracy, they abused their official position and granted building permit, without the approval of the Town Planning Officer, to the third accused in respect of a building constructed in wet land and that they did not impose building tax at threefold rate of the normal rate which should have been imposed and thereby caused huge loss to the Government and corresponding pecuniary gain to the third accused. The case against the petitioners was registered after conducting a preliminary enquiry by the VACB on the basis of the facts revealed in a surprise check. This petition was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by the petitioners for quashing the FIR. The honorable court held, “Keeping in mind the above principles, at the time of hearing, this Court expressed the view that the allegations in FIR, disclose commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners and therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to quash the FIR. When the case came up for hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted before this Court that the investigation of the case has reached the final stage. In view of this fact, this Court also expressed the view that, when the investigation of the case had reached the final stage, it should be allowed to reach its logical end.” The court further stated “It is clarified and ordered that pendency of a crime shall not be reckoned for anything against the service matters of the petitioners including their due promotion and other benefits. Consequently, the prayer for quashing FIR is rejected and the petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the benefit granted to the petitioners as per the interim order passed by this Court shall be available to them till the date of filing the final report in the case. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the final report at the appropriate stage, if so advised”