Dismissed

Muhammedkutty A.C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/45/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenges the rejection of a complaint alleging that police Sub-Inspector and Senior Civil Police Officer accepted bribes regarding the investigation of a shop demolition case. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no material to override the Quick Verification Report which found no evidence of bribery or criminal misconduct.

What the court decided

AI extract

Muhammedkutty A.C Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 17TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 45 of 2018

¶6

CMP 479/2016 of COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMR.& SPL.JUDGE, KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT

¶8

MUHAMMEDKUTTY A.C AGED 66 YEARS, S/O BEERANKUTTY HAJI, ARIMANICHOLA HOUSE, PONMUNDAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.RAJIT

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & ACCUSED :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶13

ERNAKULAM

¶14

2. SRI.N.B.SHYJU,

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION- 676 503.

¶16

3. SRI. JABEER,

¶17

SENIOR CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION- 676 503.

¶18

4. SRI.PRAVEEN,

¶19

CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION- 676 503.

¶20

5. SRI.NAZAR,

¶21

S/O ALIKKOYA, CHANKUVETTY, NEAR MINI INDUSTRIAL ROAD,

¶22

KOTTAKKAL- 676 503.

¶23

6. SRI.C.K.KUNHIMARAKKAR,

¶24

S/O ERAMUTTY, CHERUKKATT HOUSE, NEAR CHANKUVETTY MILL, KOTTAKKAL- 676 503.

¶25

7. SRI. ABDUL SALAM,

¶26

S/O ERAMUTTY, CHERUKKATT HOUSE, NEAR CHANKUVETTY MILL, KOTTAKKAL- 676 503.

¶27

8. SMT.KADIYAMU,

¶28

W/O ERAMUTTY, CHERUKKATT HOUSE, NEAR CHANKUVETTY MILL, KOTTAKKAL- 676 503.

¶29

9. SMT.KUNHATHUTTY,

¶30

D/O ERAMUTTY, CHERUKKATT HOUSE, NEAR CHANKUVETTY MILL, KOTTAKKAL- 676 503.

¶31

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 45 of 2018

¶32

:: 2 ::

¶33

10.	SMT. KHADE	EJA,
	D/O ERAMUT KOTTAKKAL-	TY, CHERUKKATT 676 503.	HOUSE, NEAR CHANKUVETTY MILL,
11.	SMT. RAMLA D/O ERAMUT KOTTAKKAL-	, TY, CHERUKKATT 676 503.	HOUSE, NEAR CHANKUVETTY MILL,
12.	SMT.MUMTHA D/O ERAMUT KOTTAKKAL-	S TY, CHERUKKATT 676 503.	HOUSE, NEAR CHANKUVETTY MILL,
13.	SRI. KUNHI S/O ERAMUT KOTTAKKAL-	MOIDEEN, TY, CHERUKKATT 676 503.	HOUSE, NEAR CHANKUVETTY MILL,
	R2-R4 BY	ADV. SRI.T.ASA	FALI

¶34

R5-R13 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶35

R1 BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.A.RAJESH

¶36

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 45 of 2018

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

ANNEXURE-A:	TRUE COPY OF THE STATION.	FIR IN CRIME NO.356/2011 OF THE KOTTAKKAL POLICE
ANNEXURE-B:	TRUE COPY OF THE MALAPPURAM.	FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DYSP & DCRB,
ANNEXURE-C:	TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF DATED 21.12	REPORT FILED BY THE DYSP TO THE DISTRICT POLICE .2013.
ANNEXURE-D:	TRUE COPY OF THE MALAPPURAM.	COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ANNEXURE-E:	TRUE COPY OF THE	COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE-F:	TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHED TO THE V	QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DYSP IGILANCE DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE-G:	TRUE COPY OF THE	OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶41

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶46

-------------------------------Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶47

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2018

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

The petitioner is the complainant in CMP 479/2016 on

¶50

the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode.

¶51

The allegations in the complaint can be briefly stated thus:-

¶52

The petitioner took a shop room bearing No.KP1/938 of Kottakkal Municipality on lease from respondent Nos.6 to 13. Petitioner was running a glass house namely “Mass Glass House” in the said shop room in partnership with three others. While the petitioner and the partners were doing the business in the said room, the respondent Nos.6 to 13 demanded the petitioner and other partners to vacate the shop room since they wanted to sell the shop room and premises to another person. While so, on 24.07.2011 during night hours, the respondent Nos.5 to

¶53

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶54

-: 2 :-

¶55

13 came to the above said shop premises with JCB and demolished half portion of the shop room with the aid of respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner sustained huge loss due to the said incident.

¶56

On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, crime No.356/2011 was registered by Kottakkal Police for offences under Sections 447 and 427 r/w Section 34 IPC. The accused persons were released on bail on the date of arrest itself. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirur and another petition before the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram. Thereafter, the investigation in this case was taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB, Malappuram as directed by the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB, Malappuram, after completing the investigation, filed the final report against 15 persons before the Magistrate Court concerned on 1.3.2012 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 457, 427 and 380 r/w

¶57

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶58

-: 3 :-

¶59

Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the CMP No.1703/2014 before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur praying for a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Malappuram to conduct a preliminary enquiry in this regard and file a report before the court. Accordingly, a quick verification report was filed. After the receipt of the quick verification report, the learned Special Judge transmitted the files to the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, in view of the lack of territorial jurisdiction. There, the above CMP was re-numbered as CMP 479/2016. The learned Special Judge, Kozhikode, after hearing the petitioner and perusing the records including the quick verification report, rejected the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the

¶61

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶62

-: 4 :-

¶63

learned counsel for the party respondents.

¶64

It is stated in the quick verification report that no evidence could be received to indicate that respondent Nos.2 to 4 accepted bribe from any of the accused.

¶65

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are materials to indicate that respondent Nos.2 and 3 contacted some of the accused persons over mobile phone prior to the incident, at the time of the incident and subsequent to the incident and hence, it has to be held that there was criminal misconduct on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the matter of registration of the crime. I have gone through the quick verification report. The quick verification report refers to the calls made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to some of the accused persons. However, after completing the quick verification, the Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the conclusion that no material was received to indicate that respondent Nos.2 and 3 accepted any bribe

¶66

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶67

-: 5 :-

¶68

from respondent Nos.6 to 13.

¶69

The quick verification report has to be analysed in the light of other facts and circumstances available in this case. It is borne out from the records that the incident of demolition of the shop of the petitioner occurred on 24.07.2011 at midnight. However, the information with regard to the incident was made to the Police by the petitioner only on 25.07.2011 at 2 p.m. Immediately, the crime was registered. Within three days of registering the crime, the petitioner approached the superior officers of Police seeking for investigation by some other officers. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB, Malappuram was entrusted with the task of investigation of Crime No.356/2011 of Kottakkal Police Station. He conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the court on 1.3.2012.

¶70

The petitioner filed CMP.1703/2014 before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Tirur only on 19.11.2014, which was nearly after a period

¶71

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶72

-: 6 :-

¶73

of three years and four months from the date of incident and two years and eight months after the filing of the final report before the court in Crime No.356/2011 of Kottakkal Police Station. No reason has been stated in the complaint as to why there was inordinate delay in approaching the court with the above said complaint.

¶74

The revision petitioner also did not produce any material before the court along with the complaint to indicate that respondent Nos.2 to 4 committed any criminal misconduct in the matter of registration of the crime. It appears that the crime was registered immediately. However, proper sections of offences were not incorporated at the time of registering the FIR. The phone calls made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 would indicate that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had connection with some of the accused in crime No.356/2011 of Kottakkal Police station. These aspects were elaborately considered

¶75

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶76

-: 7 :-

¶77

by the officer who conducted the quick verification and filed the report.

¶78

The materials placed before the court including the quick verification report would indicate that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had connection with some of the accused in Crime No.356/2011 of Kottakkal Police Station. The allegation of the petitioner is that the shop room taken on lease by the petitioner along with his partners had been demolished by respondent Nos.6 to 13 with the aid of respondent Nos.2 to 4. However, the final report was filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 01.3.2012, after completing the investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the final report filed before the court, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not the accused. The above case is presently pending as C.C.No.228/2012. No allegation has been so far raised against the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

¶79

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶80

-: 8 :-

¶81

or his team, who conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the court in Crime No.356/2011 of Kottakkal Police Station.

¶82

No step has also been taken so far by the petitioner challenging the final report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram in Crime No.356/2011 of Malappuram Police Station. This would indicate that the petitioner was satisfied with the final report filed by the Police on 01.03.21012. It can be safely inferred from a conjoint reading of the above final report and the quick verification report that even though appellant Nos.2 and 3 were having connection with some of the accused in the above said case, they did not aid or assist the other accused for demolishing the building, wherein the petitioner was conducting business in partnership, as alleged by the petitioner. Merely because respondent Nos.2 and 3 had connection with some of the accused, it cannot be said that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 committed criminal misconduct in the absence of any

¶83

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶84

-: 9 :-

¶85

material to that effect. It is also to be noted that the second respondent herein conducted the investigation only for a period from 25.07.2011 to 28.07.2011.

¶86

Having gone through the quick verification report and connected materials, in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I do not find any reason to deviate from the finding by the court below that there is no material before the court to indicate that respondent Nos.2 and 3 received any bribe, as suspected by the petitioner.

¶87

In the said circumstances, there was no scope to direct the Vigilance to register the crime and investigate. For the said reason and in the absence of sanction, the court below was justified in not taking cognizance for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. For the said reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the

¶88

Crl.R.P. No.45 of 2018

¶89

-: 10 :-

¶90

complaint.

¶91

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.

¶92

Sd/-

¶93

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶94

STK

¶95

//TRUE COPY//

¶96

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Muhammedkutty A.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Muhammedkutty A.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devi v Thattil Vs C D Mathai

Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Muhammed Jaseel Vs State- Rep. by Ci of Police

K.Padmakumar Vs K.Ellangovan I.A.S

T.N.Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala