Kerala HC dismissed a petition to quash an FIR against a post-woman accused of misdelivery. The Court held that investigation must continue, statutory immunity does not apply to fraudulent acts, and Section 482 is not an apt remedy at this stage.
Petition dismissed; criminal proceedings against the petitioner are not to be quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/7TH KARTHIKA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 982 of 2012 ()
CRIME NO.954/2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
VALASALA.K.C., AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.MANIYAN, LIMBA BHAVAN, OTHERA WEST.P.O., KUTTOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, WORKING AS POST WOMEN, WEST OTHERA POST OFFICE, THIRUVALLA.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SMT.PRIYANKA PRASAD
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS/STATE:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, O/O.JOINT RTO, THIRUVALLA-689 101.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
CRMC.NO.982/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEX 1 | COPY OF THE LETTER NO.27/KL27 B395/11 PT DATED 17/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE JOINT,RTO, THIRUVALLA |
|---|---|
| ANNEX II | COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.954/2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION |
| ANNEX III | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.43-24/90-D(PT)DATED 31/10/1990 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,DEPARTMENT OF POST |
| ANNEX IV | COPY OF THE DELIVERY SLIP DATED 4/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE BY LETTER DATED 13/3/2012 |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
“C.R.”
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29th day of October, 2012
O R D E R
The above petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short “the Code”}, to quash Annexure II FIR registered in Crime No.954 of 2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station. Petitioner, a post-woman attached to West Othera Post Office, proceeded in the crime, which is now pending investigation, seeks to quash the proceedings thereof.
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 2 ::
offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, adverting to some decisions rendered by the Apex Court viz., State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal {1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335}, R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab {AIR 1960 SC 866} and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. {2006(6) SCC 736} strenuously contended that the crime registered for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code {for short “the IPC”} with no whisper of any allegation thereto made out in Annexure I information supplied, is absurd and inherently unworthy of any merit or value, and, as such the criminal proceedings on the basis of Annexure II FIR against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Petitioner, a post-woman, is proceeded on the basis of the allegation that a postal article was mis-delivered by her. Even if that be so,
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 3 ::
according to the counsel, she is protected by Section 197 of the Code from prosecution and, further, there is a statutory immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, exempting the post office and its officers from liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay in delivery of postal articles, is the submission of the counsel, to urge for quashing Annexure II FIR.
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 4 ::
communication. Going through the communication Annexure I, it is seen, even previously a communication in the same matter had been sent, but some clarifications were sought for by the police. In fact, Annexure-I communication indicates of the request from the Joint Regional Transport Officer to the police for giving particulars of the clarification required. That communication also makes clear that, to enable the transport authorities to issue a duplicate registration certificate to the owner, an FIR over the missing of postal article with which the original certificate was previously sent is necessary. Annexure II FIR was registered in the circumstances as indicate above. True, Section 154 of the Code contemplates registration of an FIR only where a cognizable
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 5 ::
offence is disclosed, and not in other cases. However, for practical purposes, and to serve the ends of justice, there may arise situations which demand registration of a crime by the police, even when no cognizable offence is disclosed on the information supplied. Where a person loses his credit card, passport or other valuable document, issuing authority thereof may insist for intimation to be given and registration of a case thereof by the police to enable them to take further steps for issue of a fresh document/card etc., as the case may be. Previously, there was no statutory recognition for registering a crime when a man was reported to be missing, to proceed with enquiry/investigation. This court had occasion to consider that question; and, it has been observed that registration of a crime under the
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 6 ::
caption “man missing' by the police in such a situation is not only advisable, but has to be done to serve the ends of justice. Similar is the situation in the registration of crime under Section 174 of the Code by the police where information is received that a person has committed suicide or a dead body is found under suspicious circumstance though at that stage no reasonable suspicion of commission of any offence over the death of that person is disclosed as such. So, it cannot be concluded that the police can register a crime only when information received disclose commission of a cognizable offence, and that alone. Annexure II FIR is registered not against the petitioner as such, but naming the accused person as 'postman' of West Othera Post Office. True, Annexure I communication of the Joint
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 7 ::
Regional Transport Officer does not disclose any material particulars constituting an offence under Section 409 of the IPC over the missing of the postal article, which was the offence included while registering Annexure II FIR. Penal offence imputed for registration of the crime is not disclosed by the information suppled is the main challenge canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the criminal proceedings arising from Annexure II FIR. That cannot be examined in isolation while exercise of the inherent powers of this court is invited of. That has to be done with reference to the totality of the facts and circumstances presented in the case.
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 8 ::
prima facie, disclose that the registered postal article addressed to the registered owner of the vehicle from the Joint Regional Transport Officer's office and received at West Othera Post Office, after inclusion in the delivery list for service on the addressee had been collected by the petitioner. Investigation disclosed making of fraudulent entries in the records to show the service of that postal article on the addressee, when it was not served so. An offence under Section 465 of the IPC has been included in the crime, the investigation of which still continues.
petitioner has produced another document, copy of a FIR in another crime as Annexure V, for its reception as additional material. Annexure-V is the FIR registered on her
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 9 ::
complaint against three persons including one Prabhakaran, to whom the postal article containing the registration certificate of the vehicle was sent by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, which is alleged to have been lost. She was intimidated, assaulted and an atrocity was committed against her, who claims to be a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, was her case for registration of Annexure V FIR against the accused persons named, for offences punishable under the Penal Code and also under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act {for short “SC/ST PA Act”}. On account of the registration of the aforesaid crime, Annexure II FIR was later registered against her imputing false allegations over the missing of the postal article sent to the aforesaid
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 10 ::
Prabhakaran, is her further case. Registration of the previous FIR on her complaint against the addressee of the postal article which contained a valuable document, allegedly collected by the petitioner, but not served on the addressee, is also a circumstance that has to be taken note of in examining whether the inherent powers of this court, at this stage, when investigation over Annexure II FIR continues, is called for. I find the investigation of the crime has to continue to reach its logical conclusion.
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 11 ::
to exercise its inherent powers, even in respect of criminal proceedings pending in investigation, is intended to do the real and substantial justice for the administration of justice for which alone the courts exist. Annexure I communication sent from the Joint Regional Transport Officer's office does not contain the ingredients of the offence stated in Annexure II FIR in the facts and circumstances of the case is not at all a material circumstance enabling the petitioner, who is later proceeded as the accused, to invoke the inherent powers of this court for quashing the criminal proceedings against her.
I do not also find any merit, at this stage, in the plea set forth that the petitioner, a public servant, is insulated from prosecution under Section 197 of the code, and also as to her
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 12 ::
immunity under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. An offence of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation of money or property, cannot be said to be connected with official duties. However, whether there is any reasonable connection between the alleged act done by the public servants and discharge of official duty, and, if so sanction under Section 197 of the Code is required, depends upon the facts of the case. Similarly, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act exempts the Government from liability arising from loss of the postal article in transit, and, that of an officer of the post office from such loss, provided, it has not been caused by his fraudulent or wilful act or default. That Section does not confer immunity from prosecution to an officer of the post office, for any offence committed over the loss
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 13 ::
or mis-delivery of postal article. In the context, it is to be noted, an officer of post office, who commits theft or dishonestly misappropriates, secrets, destroys or throws away any postal article, can be prosecuted and punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine (See Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act). To prosecute an officer of a post office under the aforesaid Section, entrustment of a postal article to him/her is not an essential ingredient {See Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 822}, and a prosecution thereof is not interdicted by any provisions of the aforesaid Act. Section 72 of the Act which restricts taking cognizance of certain offences under the Act, except on an authority named thereof, it is to be noted, has excluded the offence covered by
Crl.M.C.No.982 of 2012
:: 14 ::
Section 52 of the Act. Questions thereof may arise for consideration, if at all germane, after completion of the investigation and, if any, report is filed indicting the petitioner of any offence in relation to the postal article collected by her for delivery, but not delivered to the addressee, for whatever reason that may be.
Petition is devoid of any merit, and it
is dismissed.
Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE
sk/-
//true copy//
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR can be quashed when the initial information does not disclose a cognizable offence.
Whether a post-woman is protected from prosecution under Section 197 CrPC or Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act.
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC justify quashing criminal proceedings against a postal employee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶31
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal {1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335} · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶31
R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab {AIR 1960 SC 866} · Who else cites this
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.Referred¶31
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. {2006(6) SCC 736} · Who else cites this
Radha Kishan v. State of U.P.Explained¶74
Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 822 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Valasala.K.C.
State of Kerala
S.S.Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
