Dismissed

Jinan K. T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2023Crl.MC/56/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that vigilance manual non-compliance is not a ground for quashing; allegations disclose offences. Noted that framing of charges bars quashing under Section 482 CrPC. Sanction contention deferred. Directed speedy disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. petition stands dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of C.C. No.08/2018 within three months.

Jinan K. T Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 8/2018 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JINAN K. T
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, KOCHERY HOUSE, VELAYANAD,VELLANGALLUR
THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680662
BY ADVS.
ASOK KUMAR K.P.
RASMI NAIR T.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI- 682031

¶10

2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,SHORNUR ROAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-678001, PIN - 678001

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

smt.REKHA.S-SR.GP

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶16

K.BABU, J .

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.56 of 2023

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.08/2018 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The petitioner faces charges under Sections 465, 468, 471, 477 A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (d)(2)read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

¶21

2. The prosecution case is as follows:-

¶22

The petitioner while officiating as a Special Village Officer, Inchamudi, Kurumbilavu Village, Thrissur District from 25.07.2000 to 19.12.2000, who was entrusted with the responsibility to collect tax on behalf of the Government, collected an amount of Rs.2384/- being the land tax after issuing tax receipts, but remitted Rs.52/- only in the Government Treasury and thus misappropriated Rs.2332/- for his own use and caused loss to the state exchequer. He also

¶23

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶25

forged the name of the tax remitter in the copy of the tax receipt and issued the original receipt to the tax payer in his address and used the forged copy of the receipt as genuine and cheated the Government and falsified the accounts.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Investigating Officer has not followed the provisions in the Vigilance Manual in proceeding with the investigation. It is further submitted that the allegations do not reveal the offences alleged. I shall first consider the contention of the petitioner regarding the applicability of the Vigilance Manual. The Vigilance Manual is not a Statute and has not been enacted by the Legislature. It is a set of administrative orders issued for internal guidelines of the police officials concerned. The instructions in the Manual are only directory. Mere noncompliance with the instructions in the Manual, which are issued only for the guidance of the detecting or Investigating Officer cannot be a ground for interfering with the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer.

¶27

I have gone through the FIR which is marked as

¶28

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶30

Annexure A1 and the final report marked as Annexure A4. Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A4 final report specifically allege that while working as Special Village Officer, the petitioner forged Government receipt books and misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,332/- by entering fictitious names in the counterfoil of the receipt. It is alleged that while officiating as Special Village Officer, the petitioner had collected Rs.2,384/being the land tax after issuing tax receipt and remitted only Rs.52/- in the Government treasury. The allegations of criminal misconduct as defined in Section 13 of the PC Act and forgery under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC are made out from the allegations levelled by the prosecution. It is settled by a long course of decisions of the Apex Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in a complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has been further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations {Vide: State of

¶31

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶33

West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561], Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [(1985) 2 SCC 370]} . While dealing with the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings the Apex Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2021 SC 1918) concluded thus in paragraph 23 of the judgment:

¶34

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the Accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed Under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

¶35

(i) xxx xxx xxx

¶36

xxx xxx xxx

¶37

(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶38

CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶39

¶40

After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶41

(xiii) xxx xxx xxx

¶42

(xiv) xxx xxx xxx

¶43

(xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged Accused and the court when it exercises the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;”

¶44

In the present case, the petitioner failed to convince

¶45

this Court that the allegations levelled against him in the prosecution records do not disclose the offences alleged.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner further challenges the validity of the sanction accorded by the competent authority as per Section 19 of the PC Act.

¶47

It is submitted from the bar that the trial Court has already framed charges against the petitioner. In Minakshi Bala Vs. Sudhir Kumar and Others , ( (1994) 4 SCC 142),

¶48

the Apex Court held that, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court would not be justified in

¶49

CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course.

¶52

In the present case, the petitioner failed to present any such circumstances warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶53

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the sanction accorded by the competent authority under Section 19 is invalid. In view of the fact that the petitioner failed to establish any other successful grounds to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C, I leave that contention to be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. The Criminal M.C. therefore, lacks merits. It stands dismissed.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a direction to the Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the matter. It is seen that the matter is of the year 2005. The petitioner has already retired from the service. So, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of C.C. No.08/2018, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three

¶55

¶56

CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶57

months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the Trial Court is at liberty to approach this Court seeking extension of time, if required.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

saap

¶60

CRL.MC NO. 56 OF 2023

¶61

¶62

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 56/2023

¶63

`PETITIONER ANNEX`	`URES`
`Annexure A-1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 11/2005 DATED` `17.08.2005`
`Annexure A-2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CRL.MC.` `NO. 1963/2018 DATED 23.03.2018 OF THIS` `HON'BLE COURT`
`Annexure A-3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PROSECUTION SANCTION` `ORDER NO. LR D2-46950/2005 DATED` `14.02.2008 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND` `REVENUE`
`Annexure A-4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO` `11/2005 DATED 17.05.2008 OF THE VACB,` `THRISSUR FILED BEFORE THE SPECIAL JUDGE` `AND ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER (VIGILANCE)` `THRISSUR`
`Annexure A-5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SS1-67025/2000` `DATED NIL OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,` `THRISSUR.`
`Annexure A-6`	`A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED` `05.04.1997`
`Annexure A-7`	`A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED` `09.06.2010`
`Annexure A-8`	`A TRUE OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 25.08.2004`

¶64

//True copy//PA to Judge

Jinan K. T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jinan K. T 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saiby Jose Kidangoor Vs the State Police Chief

V.C.Haridasan Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Dinesh Babu Vs State of Kerala

Odampally Devaswam Trust Vs Suseelan Kaimal

Gopakumar V.G. Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.T. Sivakumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation