Allowed

Madhumadanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1342/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the final report against the petitioner, a police constable accused in a passport forgery case. The court held that mere lapses in verification do not constitute criminal liability absent evidence of common intention or active involvement, ruling the accusation an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Final Report submitted in C.C. No. 1034/2021 against the petitioner is quashed.

Madhumadanan Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1342 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1034/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MADHUMADANAN AGED 58 YEARS SON OF KRISHNAN NAIR SANTHINAGAR HOUSE, KARADUKKA P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

SON OF KRISHNAN NAIR AGED 58 YEARS SANTHINAGAR HOUSE, KARADUKKA P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671542

¶10

BY ADVS. I.V.PRAMOD K.V.SASIDHARAN SAIRA SOURAJ P.

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

ADV.C.S HRITHIK,SRPP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶17

¶18

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J

¶19

….................................... Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶20

…....................................................... Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.234/2014 of Crime Branch, Kasaragod Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.1034/2021 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Kasaragod. The aforesaid offence was registered against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable Sections 167, 417, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 12(1)(a), (b) and 12(2) of the Passports Act. The petitioner is a police constable.

¶23

The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused named Adbul Latheef has obtained a passport in the name of CW2, Moideen Kunhi, by submitting false records and using the said false passport, the 1^st accused travelled abroad. The allegation against the petitioner is that, while he was working as a police constable, he was entrusted with the duty to inquire about the factual background of the 1^st accused and to prepare the police verification report, as part of processing the application

¶24

Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶25

¶26

submitted by the 1^st accused. The petitioner conducted an inspection and submitted a report stating that he physically examined the details furnished in the application and found the petitioner present in the native village. According to him, 1^st accused had been residing in the said place for the last two years. Thus, he submitted a favourable report recommending the issuance of a passport and it was issued to the 1^st accused accordingly. The allegation is that, the petitioner submitted the aforesaid report in furtherance of common intention, which he shared with the 1^st accused. Annexure 3 is the FIR registered and Annexure 4 is the Final Report submitted by the police. This Crl.M.C is filed challenging Annexure 4 Final Report as against the petitioner herein.

¶27

Heard, Sri. I.V. Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, even if the entire materials are taken into consideration, no offence is made out as against the petitioner. It is pointed out that, it is discernible from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that all supporting documents were produced by the 1^st accused along with his application and under normal circumstances, it would not have been possible for the

¶29

Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶30

¶31

petitioner to find out that the contents of the aforesaid application and the documents produced along with the same were not related to the 1^st accused. The learned counsel brought my attention to the statements of several witnesses, to substantiate the same.

¶32

On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the aforesaid contention. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that, the police verification report submitted by him indicates that he physically verified the personal address of the petitioner after going there and had given the said certificate after meeting the person. Therefore, it is pointed out that, since the aforesaid certificate is issued after meeting the accused person, the role of the petitioner will be ascertained after examination of the materials during the course of trial. It is not possible to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the complicity of the petitioner has to be adjudicated during the trial, contends the learned Public Prosecutor. According to him, the nature of contentions raised by the petitioner is beyond the scope of the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

I have gone through the contents of Annexure 4 final report, and Annexure 6 statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. CW2 is Moideen Kunhi, in whose

¶34

Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶35

¶36

name the 1^st accused obtained the passport. His evidence would only show that he never applied for any passport. CW3 is the brother of CW1, who stated that the address and the ration card, along with the application submitted for the passport, belonged to their family. He is unaware of how the said documents came into the possession of the 1^st accused. CW8 is the Headmaster of the school from which the school certificate of CW2 was allegedly obtained. His evidence is to be the effect that a person name Moideen Kunhi was a student in the said school and after the 1^st standard, he abandoned the school. CW10 is the Passport Officer, and on perusal of the statement given by him, it is revealed that he has verified the application submitted by the 1^st accused and the details/documents furnished along with the same for the purpose of processing the application for the passport for the 1^st petitioner. It is specifically stated by him that, since he had some doubts about the veracity of the documents submitted by him, he obtained a report from the District Education Officer (DEO) as to the genuineness of the same and the passport was issued after getting a favourable report from the said authority. CW9 is the retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had stated that, at the relevant time, they used to get more than 1500 passport applications in a

¶37

Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶38

¶39

month and the same was being processed through the Station

¶40

House Officers concerned for the purpose of obtaining police verification reports.

¶41

When all these statements are taken into consideration, it is discernible that the 1^st accused had cleverly collected all the relevant documents from all the authorities concerned and managed to mislead all of them that a proper application had been submitted by him along with proper documents which indicate the correct address and details of the 1^st accused. The aforementioned aspects are evident from the statements of CWs 2, 8 and 10. As far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation in the final report that he had any previous acquaintance with the 1^st accused. It is also discernible from the records that a large number of applications were being received by the authorities concerned for verification and the same was allotted to different police constables in charge. In the absence of an allegation of any previous acquaintance with the 1^st accused, it cannot be safely concluded that the petitioner shared a common intention with the 1^st accused. Apart from the above, the specific case put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had infact gone to the residence of the petitioner and thereupon he

¶42

Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶43

¶44

was informed that a person named in the passport application was very much there. It is his further case that, after physically meeting him, the said report was prepared. It is a fact that apart from the photograph and the identity of the 1^st accused, all the other details furnished in the passport application and the documents mentioned therein were proper and were related to CW1 Moideen Kunhi, a person who is available in the locality. Hence, the possibility of the petitioner being misled by these details cannot be ruled out.

¶45

In my view, on perusal of the records, this could be a case where there can be some lapses on the part of the petitioner while preparing the report. However, mere lapses alone are not sufficient to implicate the petitioner in a criminal offence. To implicate the petitioner as an accused person, there must be some positive evidence to show that he was actively involved in the commission of the crime with the dishonest intention to do the same. Moreover, even according to the prosecution case, all the documents were prepared by the 1^st accused and the petitioner was implicated only with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no case for the prosecution that the petitioner has made any unlawful gains in the aforesaid transactions. As mentioned above, there are no materials indicating previous acquaintance between the

¶46

Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶47

¶48

petitioner and the 1^st accused. In my view, in the absence of any such allegations, under no circumstances can it be concluded that the petitioner shared a common intention with the 1^st accused to commit the offences as alleged by the prosecution.

¶49

In such circumstances, I am of the clear view that, at the most, this could be a case of negligent act on the part of the petitioner, but under no circumstances can any culpability be attributed to him so as to warrant a criminal prosecution. Therefore, Annexure 4 Final Report submitted against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law as far as he is concerned.

¶50

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed, Annexure 4 Final Report submitted in Crime No.234/2014 of Crime Branch Kasaragod Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.1034/2021 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, as against the petitioner herein are hereby quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the continuation of prosecution against the other accused.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

¶53

Dxy

¶54

Crl.M.C.No. 1342 of 2022

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1342/2022

¶57

PETITIONER ANNE	XURES
ANNEXURE1	A TRUE COPY OF THE K/KNR S.UNIT/2014	REPORT NO. 329/CB HHW III OF DY.SP DATED 5/12/2014
ANNEXURE2	A TRUE COPY OF THE NO. D1-4170/CB HHW 11/12/2014	COVERING LETTER BEARING III/KKD/2014 DATED
ANNEXURE3	A TRUE COPY OF THE KKD/2014 DATED 29/ CID HQ, THIRUVANAN	FIR NO. 234/CR/HHW III 12/2014 OF CRIME BRANCH, THAPURAM
ANNEXURE4	A CERTIFIED COPY O NO. 234/CR/HHW III OF CRIME BRANCH KA AS C.C. NO. 1034/2 KASARAGOD	F THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR KKD/2014 DATED 31/8/2021 SARAGOD WHICH IS PENDING 021 BEFORE JFMC-I,
ANNEXURE5	A TRUE COPY OF THE 31/8/2021 IN CRIME KKD/2014 OF KASARA	MEMO OF EVIDENCE DATED NO. 234/CR/HHW III GOD CRIME BRANCH
ANNEXURE6	A TRUE COPY OF THE 1 TO 23 AND 25	STATEMENTS OF WITNESS NO.

Madhumadanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhumadanan 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

K.K. Basheer Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate(Rdo)

T.K.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Emmanuel Thomas Vs 1. the State Police Chief

Aneesh Vs Ramesh

Safvan T Vs State of Kerala