Dismissed

Dr.C.K.Baiju v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jul 2019OP(Crl.)/322/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a petition under Article 227 seeking to quash an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, noting that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to quash an FIR. The petitioner was directed to follow the earlier order dated 21.6.2017, awaiting the final report for legal action.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without entertaining it; petitioner directed to imbibe spirit of previous order and wait for final report.

Dr.C.K.Baiju Vs the State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

OP(Crl.).No.322 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.VC.11/2016/SCE OF VACB, SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER :-

¶8

DR.C.K.BAIJU, AGED 54 YEARS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATTOM PALACE.P.O, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 004, S/O.C.P.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT 'BHADRA'HOUSE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM.P.O, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 582.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶10

SMT.N.R.REESHA SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS :-

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶13

2 THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33.

¶14

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, ADARSH NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶15

BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(Crl.)No.322/2019

-: 2 :-

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein seeks orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, quashing the FIR and further proceedings against him in Crime No.VC.11/2016 of the Ernakulam Special Cell of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered under Section 13(1)

¶21

(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. At the very early stage of investigation, he filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No.430/2017 for such a relief, but, it was disposed of by this Court on 21.6.2017 with

¶22

necessary observations and directions. Without understanding and imbibing the spirit of the said order, the petitioner has again approached this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the

¶23

Constitution of India.

¶24

This is not a case, where the supervisory

¶25

jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. The relief

¶26

sought is not in respect of any court order or court procedure. The relief is just to quash an FIR. Such a

¶27

OP(Crl.)No.322/2019

¶28

-: 3 :-

¶29

relief unconnected with any court procedure or court

¶30

order cannot be granted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Any way, the spirit of the order dated 21.6.2017 is that, if properly advised and if the petitioner has sufficient reason legally or

¶31

otherwise to challenge the final report after the conclusion of investigation, he can bring appropriate legal action. Without understanding this, he unnecessarily rushed to the High Court with this original petition. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the VACB that investigation is over in the crime and that final report will be filed soon.

¶32

In the above circumstances, I find no reason to entertain this petition. Repeating what this Court observed and directed on 21.6.2017, and also directing the petitioner to understand and imbibe the spirit of the said order, this original petition is disposed of.

Jvt/16.7.2019

OP(Crl.)No.322/2019

-: 4 :-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶38

EXT.P1 :- True copy of the F.I.R. in V.C. No.11/2016 dated 20.07.2016 filed before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶39

EXT.P2 :- True copy of the judgment dated 21.06.2017 in W.P.(C)No.430/2017 of this Hon'ble Court.

¶40

EXT.P3 :- True copy of the report dated 28.06.2018 submitted by the 3^rd respondent without the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of the investigation.

¶41

EXT.P4 :- True copy of the Communication No.E22 (V.C.11/16/S.C.E.) 25572/2016 dated 12.09.2018 sent by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau.

¶42

EXT.P5 :- True copy of the Communication No.C425472/2004 dated 09.09.2004 of the 2^nd respondent.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :- Nil.

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

P.A. TO JUDGE

Dr.C.K.Baiju v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.C.K.Baiju v. the 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

Emmannuel Vs the State of Kerala

Anantharaman Vs Sulaiman

Dirsha K.Muhammad Vs State of Kerala

Rajan P.V. Vs Dushyanthan M.A.

Rararaj.R Vs State of Kerala(Director,Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau,Kottayam)

Suresh Vs State of Kerala