Dismissed

G. Rajendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2014Crl.MC/644/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bencher petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the application to quash the FIR. The Court held that it was not a fit case to invoke extraordinary powers at the primitive stage of investigation and directed the trial court to dispose of any subsequent bail application on the date of its filing.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the FIR was dismissed. Direction given to the Magistrate to dispose of any bail application by the petitioner on the date of filing.

G. Rajendran Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 644 of 2014 ()

¶6

-------------------------CRIME NO. 2604/2013 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO :

¶8

G. RAJENDRAN S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 66 YEARS PUTHEN VEEDU, PUTHIYAKAVU KILIMANOOR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031. (ON BEHALF OF SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTARAKKARA).

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 644 of 2014 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶19

ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE FIR AND SPORT MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO. 2604/2013 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION.

¶20

ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE SEARCH MAHAZAR DATED 2.11.2013.

¶21

ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDERS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

¶23

//TRUE COPY//

¶24

P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

¶25

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

¶26

============================== Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2014

¶27

============================== Dated this, the 14^th day of March, 2014.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the third accused in Crime No.2604/13 of Kottarakkara Police Station under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that the above crime

¶31

has been registered alleging offences under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 7 of Kerala Rationing Order. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara had intercepted a lorry with No.KL-05-Z-7737, which was sold to Tasneem Traders, Merchant and Commission Agent, Market Road, Kilimanoor to Stain Food Product (Pltd), Arpookkara, Kottayam. On verification, it was found that, it was ration rice and Annexure A1 crime was registered originally against one Sagar alone who was found in the vehicle. Later, they have implicated the present petitioner also as one of the accused on the basis of the alleged confession given by the driver of the vehicle in which the alleged contraband articles were transported. The documents produced by the petitioner will go

¶32

to show that no ration rice supplied to the petitioner from his

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2014 : 2 :

¶34

godown was sold unauthorizedly from the stock in the godown revealed in the inspection conducted by the authorities. So, the implication of the petitioner is without any material and no offence against the petitioner has been made out. So, he prayed for quashing the proceedings as against him invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶35

On the basis of the allegations in the petition, a statement was called for from the investigating officer and the investigating officer filed a statement which reads as follows:

¶36

“ It is submitted that, the petitioner G.Rajendran who prays for quashing the FIR in Kottarakara Police Station crime.2604/13 is the 3^rd Accused in said crime.

¶37

The brief of the case is that with a common intention of the accused for getting unlawful enrichment by selling ration rice in black market the rice which is intended to distribute among the public through ration outlets. A1 and A2 assembled together and loaded 200 bags of ration commodities (rice) in a lorry bearing registration No.KL5Z/7737 from the ration whole sale depot No.AWD(T) 7 at Kilimannoor under the authorized licence owned by the petitioner and proceeded to Kottayam through M.C.Road. While doing patrolling and vehicle check at Kunnakara in M.C.Road by Sri.M.G.Vinod Station House Officer, (SHO), Kottarakara it was noticed that the above said vehicles transporting ration commodities without valid documents. Suddenly SHO summoned the concerned. Supply Officer and inspected the commodities loaded in the vehicle and found that illegally and unauthorisely transporting ration

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2014 : 3 :

¶39

commodities (Rice) through the vehicle, with the intension of sale that goods and it is found that the commission of offences is true. Hence the vehicle with commodities were seized after recorded Mahazar, taken to Police station, and Suomoto case in Crime.2604/13/u/s 5(a) of Kerala ration order 1966 and Section 3 & 7 of E.C. Act 1955 was registered by SHO M.G.Vinod Sub Inspector Police on 01.11.2013 and the case is now being investigated by me.

¶40

It is submitted that, Chandran Pillai A2 accused had been arrested and recorded the confession. According to him the ration commodities kept in the whole sale depot of the petitioner was loaded in the vehicle No.KL/5/Z-7737 as per the direction of Managing authority Mr.Sahir Ahammed who is the 1^st accused in the case, for transporting from Kilimanoor to Kottayam. Commodities kept in the station premises has been examined by the FCI authorities and found that said commodities has been issued by FCI godown, for supplying through ration shops. On investigation it is revealed that ration commodities kept in the whole sale depot, of the petitioner, was being regularly sold illegally. 2^nd accused the driver of the vehicle was arrested and produced before the JFMC-I, Kottarakara and remanded. Now he is on bail. As per the order of district collector, Kollam the commodities were entrusted with Taluk Supply Officer, Kottarakara on proper acknowledgment and the vehicle involved in the case is kept at station premises.

¶41

It is submitted that the petitioner had already filed an application before the hon'ble session Court, Kollam for getting anticipatory bail. The Hon'ble court ordered as per Crl.M.P.No.3617/13 that if the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating Officer he should co-operated with the investigation, and he should be produced before the concerned Magistrate and bail shall be considered. But the

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2014 : 4 :

¶43

petitioner yet not be reported before me.

¶44

It is submitted that, the investigation of the case is in progress. The registered owner of the vehicle involved in the case is to be verified, and the detailed role of the first accused is also to be collected from the supply office authorities. A1 and the petitioner must be arrested and the role of the petitioner is to be clearly verified for further investigation. Approximately three months, from the date is needed for completing the investigation. On my investigation the petitioner Rajendran has a clear role in the case along with other accused. Hence I most Humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may not be quashed the FIR in the Cr.2604/13. Since it has been properly registered and promptly and bonafidly being investigated.”

¶45

The petitioner has filed reply affidavit controverting

¶46

the allegations in the statement as well.

¶47

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶48

The fact that ration rice carried in the vehicle driven by the first accused was intercepted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara, and the police officer was convinced that it was ration rice and it is being unauthorizedly transported. It is true that in Annexure A1 First Information Report, only one accused was shown and the present petitioner was implicated on the basis of the statement given by the driver of the

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2014 : 5 :

¶50

vehicle. At this stage, this court cannot go into the question as to whether that statement is admissible in evidence or not, or whether any material collected on the basis of the confession statement can be used against the petitioner or not, as those are all matters to be considered by the trial court at the time of appreciating the evidence. Further, it is also seen from the report submitted by the investigating officer that the present petitioner has filed an application for anticipatory bail as Crl.M.P.No.3617/13 before the Sessions Court, Kollam and that was dismissed by that court directing the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Even in that order, it was mentioned that after interrogation, he was permitted to produce before the concerned magistrate court and the magistrate can consider the bail application if any filed and it was mentioned in the report that the petitioner has not appeared before the investigating officer as directed. But, instead, he has come with an application for quashing the First Information Report.

¶51

Though it is not a bar for an accused to come before this court to quash the First Information Report registered against him, but, it is for this court to consider whether the

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2014 : 6 :

¶53

inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked at the primitive stage of the investigation especially when white collar offences have been alleged to have been committed by the persons alleged in the

¶54

First Information Statement. The genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner are also cannot be now considered by the court as it has to be proved in accordance with law. The petitioner can very well produce those documents before the investigating officer and convince the investigating officer that he is innocent. So, considering the circumstances and also the nature of offences alleged, and stage of investigation, this court feels that it is not a fit case to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to grant the relief claimed as against the petitioner in this case.

¶55

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an observation may be made to the effect that, if the petitioner surrenders before the concerned magistrate court, the bail application filed by him may be considered on the same day itself. It is not necessary to issue such directions as this court has in several cases observed that the presiding officers of the

¶56

Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2014 : 7 :

¶57

court are bound to dispose of the bail applications on date of filing of the application itself. If the petitioner moves an application for bail, then, the learned magistrate is directed to dispose of the bail application on the date of filing itself after hearing the Assistant Pubic prosecutor of that court also in accordance with law.

¶58

So, the application is dismissed.

¶59

Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.

¶60

¶61

[True copy]

¶62

P.A to Judge

G. Rajendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Rajendran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakkeer Hussain Vs Mohammed Koya

K.Vijaya Rani Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Shanavaz Vs the Union Bank of India

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Muneerudheen Vs Muhammed Ibrahim

Vishal Kumar Vs Jerry Thomas Varghese