Disposed

Rasheed.P.T v. Union of India

Kerala HC12 Mar 2024WP(Crl.)/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction for proper investigation and handover to the CBI in Crime No.694/2022 alleging forgery and cheating involving Rs.2.5 crore. The court noted a final report had already been filed under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC, held that arraying accused is the Investigating Officer's call not to be lightly interfered with, and disposed of the writ petition reserving libe

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner's liberty reserved to act in accordance with law.

Rasheed.P.T Vs Union of India — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(CRL.) NO. 28 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

RASHEED.P.T AGED 43 YEARS

¶7

S/O HAISNAAR HAAJI PULIMAMTHODI HOUSE, THEKKUMUN P.D
CHERUPARASSEREY, OTTAPALAM THALUK. PALAKKAD. [MANAGING
DIRECTOR, THAMAAM CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD 10/601)
MUTHARAYIL COMPLEX, KOOTUPAATHA, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN
- 679101

¶8

BY ADVS.
G.RANJITA
SHIFANA SHAFEEQ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND PUBLIC RELATIONS KRISHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶11

2 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, NO.16-20, BARAKHAMBHA LANE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶12

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶13

4 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE/ STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTER, THIRUVANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶14

5 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 6TH FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, PLOT NO.5-B, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM MARG, CGO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI DELHI., PIN - 110003

¶15

6 BINU GOPI THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, TATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD 9/856,DEVI ESTATE, SHOLAYAR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 678581

¶16

7 SALEELA W/O BINU GOPI DEVI ESTATE, SHALAYAR(P.O) AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678581

¶17

8 BAIJU.C MANAGING DIRECTOR, TATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, DOOR NO.3/1018, NPM COMPLEX, BYPASS. ROAD, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 673638

¶18

WP(CRL.) NO. 28 OF 2024

¶19

¶20

9SUJA
DIRECTOR, TATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, DOOR
NO.3/1018,NPM COMPLEX, BYPASS.
ROAD,KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA.,
PIN - 673638
10RISHAD.C
TATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, DOOR
NO.3/1018,NPM COMPLEX, BYPASS.
ROAD,KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA.,
PIN - 673638
11FASAL
MANAGER TATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, DOOR
NO.3/1018,NPM COMPLEX, BYPASS.
ROAD,KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA.,
PIN - 673638

¶21

12ASIF
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADZ 360 SOLUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695013
BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (PP)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(CRL.) NO. 28 OF 2024

¶26

¶27

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶28

W.P.(Crl) No. 28 of 2024

¶29

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2024

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner seeks for a direction to conduct a proper investigation into Crime No.694/2022 of Kondotti Police Station, apart from seeking a direction to hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶32

According to the prosecution, the 8^th accused had promised to arrange a contract in favour of the petitioner's for plastic ration card and collected an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/after forging the seal and documents of the Central Government. Since the petitioner apprehended that the investigation was not going on in a proper manner, this writ petition was filed.

¶33

A statement has been filed by the Investigating Officer, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Malappuram, wherein it is stated as follows:

¶34

“It is submitted that Bank account transaction details of both complainant and accused were collected. Transaction details explains that money were transferred to accused through Bank account of complainant of HDFC Bank, Cherpulassery Branch. Accused Al and A4 were

¶35

WP(CRL.) NO. 28 OF 2024

¶36

¶37

taken the complainant to New Delhi several times, They showed some fake persons as officials of Central Government and made the complainant to believe that accused had high influence in Central Government and send some fake documents as Vendor code Performa for MOU etc..

¶38

It is submitted that as per Order No. D101338/2022/MM dated 21/12/2022 of District Police Chief Malappuram the investigation of the case was transferred to C-Branch Malappuram and detailed investigation was conducted in this unit. In the investigation it is revealed that A2-Kamalam, A3- Saleela, A5- Suja, and A7-Fasal who were named as accused were not involved in this case and a report in this regard has already submitted to Hon. JFCM Malappuram to exempt them from FIR accused column and it is known that complainant had transferred only about Rs 1,29,50,000 (On Crore Twenty Nine lakh and fifty thousand) to the accused. After the detailed investigation charge sheet has been prepared and submitted before the Hon'ble JFCM Court Malappuram on 31-10-2023 U/s 420, 465,468,471 r/w 34 IPC and Hon court has received it as CC No2506/2023..”

¶39

A reading of the above statement reveals that the final report has already been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Malappuram, on 31-10-2023.

¶40

Even though the petitioner alleges that two of the main accused (A6 and A8) initially named in the FIR have now been omitted from the final report, I am of the view that those are all matters to be considered at the appropriate stage by the

¶41

¶42

WP(CRL.) NO. 28 OF 2024

¶43

jurisdictional Magistrate. The Investigating Officer has given specific reasons, as evident from the above-extracted portion of the statement, to array the accused as persons who are responsible for the crime. Formation of opinion regarding who should be arrayed as an accused is that of the Investigating Officer and such conclusion should not be interfered with lightly. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the remedy is elsewhere and not by recourse to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶44

Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to act in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶47

AJM

¶48

WP(CRL.) NO. 28 OF 2024

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 28/2024

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 5/9/2022 IN CRIME NUMBER 694/2022 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF WP (CRL) NO.1248/2022 DATED 19/9/2023 TRUE COPY

Rasheed.P.T v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasheed.P.T v. Union of India

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

Aneeshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Anoop Joy Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedhara Pai Vs the State of Kerala

Nandakumar, Vs Abdul Majeed

Nandu Vs State of Kerala

Sudarsanan P. K Vs State of Kerala