Disposed

C.N.Prasannakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2008Crl.MC/689/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to investigation delay. Noting the delay, the Court observed that delay alone is insufficient for quashing. The prosecution undertook to file the final report within one week, thereby closing the matter.

What did the court decide?

None granted; matter closed upon prosecution undertaking to file final report within one week.

C.N.Prasannakumar Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 689 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------CRIME NO.12/1998 OF THE VACB SIU, TRIVANDRUM ON THE FILES OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶7

PETITIONER: 4TH ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

C.N.PRASANNAKUMAR, T.C.9/1974-1, SREECHAKRAM, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.689 of 2008

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2008

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner, who is the 4^th accused in Crime No.12/1998 of V.A.C.B S.I.U, Thiruvananthapuram, for an offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, seeks to quash Annexure A1 FIR.

¶21

The said FIR is sought to be quashed on the ground of delay in completing the investigation. According to the petitioner, even though the crime was registered as early as in the year 1998, the vigilance police have not filed any final report before the court concerned, so far.

¶22

It is true that there has been more than nine years' delay in the investigation of the case. But, delay by itself cannot be a ground to quash the FIR, since the investigation is a complicated process particularly in a case like the instant one. Hence, I am not dealing with the decisions in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna reported in 1979 AIR(SC) 1360, Rakesh Saxena v.State through CBI (1987 AIR (SC) 740, State of Haryana v. Bhajan

¶23

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.689 of 2008

¶25

Lal ( 1992 AIR(SC) 604, Abdul Rahman Antulay v. R.S.Nayak ( 1992 AIR (SC) 1701), Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar & Ors (2002 (1) SCC 149), P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka ( 2002 (4) SCC 578), Lambodharan Nair v. State of Kerala ( 2003(1)KLT(SN)115 P.83) and Mohammed Manzoor v. Challenge Plastics ( 2003(3)KLT(SN)186 P.144)

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report will be filed within one week from today. The said submission is recorded and the matter is closed accordingly.

¶27

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶28

C.N.Prasannakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.N.Prasannakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsudin Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs State of Keala

Poovannur Edakkatil Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Suresh & Others Vs State of Kerala

Vilasini Vs Vijayamma

C.N.Prabhukaran Vs Rajan