The High Court examined a petition to quash an FIR in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held it inappropriate to quash proceedings where investigation is concluded and no patent illegality or abuse of process is evident, dismissing the petition.
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 P.UBAID
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.2950 of 2019
CRIME NO.9/2016 OF VACB, WAYANAD DISTRICT
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :
P.U.ELDHO, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, PATTUPALAYIL HOUSE, KOLLIKANDAM, PALERI, KOROM (PRESIDENT, NELLULPADAKA SAMITHI, REG NO.119/2012, PALERI, KOLLIKANDAM, KOROM, WAYANAD DISTRICT).
BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SMT.M.SANTHY SRI.JOHNY THOMAS SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
2 M.M.SANKARAN MASTER, S/O RAYARAPPAN NAIR, EZHIL HOUSE, PORALOM, KUNJOM P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-670 731.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI A RAJESH-SPL PP VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.2950 of 2019
2
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the first accused in V.C.No.9/2016 WYD of the Wayanad Unit of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau(VACB). He seeks orders quashing the FIR and further proceedings against him. The statement of objection filed by the VACB shows that the VACB has concluded the investigation, and the matter is now pending before the Director. Once the investigation process is over, and when the prosecuting agency is about to submit final report in Court after obtaining necessary sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to quash the prosecution. The FIR, and also the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, shows that a case for prosecution has been made out against the petitioner. To quash a crime at the very initial stage, or to quash the FIR, there must be patent illegality in the process, and the Court must be satisfied that further proceedings in the matter will be a clear abuse of legal process, and the whole procedure will be illegal. There is no such instance here. If the petitioner is advised that the final report as against him does not contain any definite material as against him, or to come to any prima facie finding as against him,
Crl.MC.No.2950 of 2019
3
and if he is confident that he can obtain orders, he can very well
challenge the final report.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
Sd/-
rkj P.UBAID, JUDGE
Crl.MC.No.2950 of 2019
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN VC NO 9/2016 WYD OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, WAYANAD. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.10.2016 LODGED BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR DATED 9.11.2016 WHO HAD CONDUCTED THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT) NO. 2139/2012 AD DATED 30.10.2012. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) 823/2013/AD DATED 10.05.2013. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD MANANTHAVADY.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (BUILDINGS) WAYANAD DATED 11.11.2015.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER WAYANAD DISTRICT, THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO.3094/2016. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CRL. MC NO. 8334/2016 DATED 15.12.2016.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR and prosecution against the petitioner at the initial stage.
Whether the investigation conclusion by VACB precludes quashing of criminal proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.U.ELDHO
STATE OF KERALA
M.M.SANKARAN MASTER
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
