Kerala High Court
Abdunnasar T vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
Crl.MC.No.4835 OF 2017(D)
CRIME NO.18/2016 OF VACB, KOZHIKODE , Kozhikode
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 ABDUNNASAR T
S/O.AMMAD, AGED 47 YEARS,PILASSERY HOUSE,
KANNADIKKAL, VENGERI P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 010.
2 SANAL KUMAR.A.P.
S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 40 YEARS,'SUDARSANAM',
PANOLI, MARIKUNNU P.O.,KOZHIKODE - 673 012.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
UNIT,KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI B JAYASURYA -SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON 04.02.2021,PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4835/2017
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2017
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2021
ORDER
The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the
case registered as V.C.No.18/2016 by the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kozhikode.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners in
Annexure -I FIR are under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and
under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, the first and the second
accused, who were officiating as Secretaries of the Feroke Grama
Panchayat during the period from 01.01.2012 to 02.07.2013 and
30.07.2014 to 31.07.2015 respectively, hatched a criminal
conspiracy with the third accused and pursuant to such
conspiracy, they abused their official position and granted
building permit, without the approval of the Town Planning
Crl.M.C.No.4835/2017
Officer, to the third accused in respect of a building constructed
in wet land and that they did not impose building tax at three-
fold rate of the normal rate which should have been imposed and
thereby caused huge loss to the Government and corresponding
pecuniary gain to the third accused.
4. The case against the petitioners was registered after
conducting a preliminary enquiry by the VACB on the basis of
the facts revealed in a surprise check.
5. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') by the petitioners for
quashing Anneuxre-I FIR.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
7. In Amish Devgan v. Union of India : (2021) 1 SCC
1, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"The FIR is not an encyclopaedia disclosing all facts
and details relating to the offence. The informant who
lodges the report of the offence may not even know
the name of the victim or the assailant or how the
offence took place. He need not necessarily be an
eye-witness. What is essential is that the information
must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence
Crl.M.C.No.4835/2017
and the information must provide basis for the police
officer to suspect commission of the offence. Thus, at
this stage, it is enough if the police officer on the
information given suspects--though he may not be
convinced or satisfied--that a cognizable offence has
been committed. Truthfulness of the information
would be a matter of investigation and only
thereupon the police will be able to report on the
truthfulness or otherwise. .......... even if information
does not furnish all details, it is for the investigating
officer to find out those details during the course of
investigation and collect necessary evidence. Thus,
the information disclosing commission of a cognizable
offence only sets in motion the investigating
machinery with a view to collect necessary evidence,
and thereafter, taking action in accordance with law.
The true test for a valid FIR, ...... is only whether the
information furnished provides reason to suspect the
commission of an offence which the police officer
concerned is empowered under Section 156(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate. The
questions as to whether the report is true; whether it
discloses full details regarding the manner of
occurrence; whether the accused is named; or
whether there is sufficient evidence to support the
allegation are all matters which are alien to
consideration of the question whether the report
discloses commission of a cognizable offence".
(emphasis supplied)
Crl.M.C.No.4835/2017
8. Keeping in mind the above principles, at the time of
hearing, this Court expressed the view that the allegations in
Anneuxre-I FIR, if taken on their face value, disclose commission
of the offences alleged against the petitioners and therefore, it
would not be proper for this Court to quash the FIR. When the
case came up for hearing on 08.07.2020, the learned Public
Prosecutor had submitted before this Court that the investigation
of the case has reached the final stage. In view of this fact, this
Court also expressed the view that, when the investigation of the
case had reached the final stage, it should be allowed to reach its
logical end. In the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that, if the Court is not inclined to quash
the FIR, the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court
may be allowed to the petitioners till the date of filing the final
report in the case.
9. In the interim order dated 14.7.2017 passed by this
Court, it has been stated as follows:-
"It is clarified and ordered that pendency of a
crime shall not be reckoned for anything against
the service matters of the petitioners including
their due promotion and other benefits."
Crl.M.C.No.4835/2017
10. On finding that the FIR against the petitioners cannot
be quashed, this Court feels that the benefit of the above interim
order has to be given to the petitioners till the investigating
officer files final report in the case.
11. Consequently, the prayer for quashing Annexure-I FIR
is rejected and the petition is dismissed. However, it is made
clear that the benefit granted to the petitioners as per the interim
order dated 14.07.2017 passed by this Court in this Crl.M.C shall
be available to them till the date of filing the final report in the
case. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the final report at
the appropriate stage, if so advised.
Sd/-
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
al/-
Crl.M.C.No.4835/2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE-I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
03.10.2016 IN CRIME NO.18/2016 OF THE
VACB, KOZHIKODE.
ANNEXURE-II: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
24.11.2011, SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
ACCUSED CONTAINING THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE AE, LSGD, FEROKE.
ANNEXURE-III: A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
NO.A4-18712/11 DATED 06.03.2012 ISSUED
BY THE FEROKE GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
ANNEXURE-IV: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
10.10.2012 IN I.A.NO.13685/2012 IN
WP(C) NO.23435 OF 2012.
ANNEXURE-V: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT
DATED 30.10.2012 FILE IN
I.A.NO.13685/2012 IN WP(C) NO.23435 OF
2012.
ANNEXURE-VI: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.12.2013 IN WP(C) NO.23435 OF 2012.
ANNEXURE-VII: A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
DATED 06.03.2012, CONTAINING THE CHANGE
OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED BY THE FEROKE GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
ANNEXURE-VIII: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
18.03.2014, ISSUED BY THE FEROKE GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
ANNEXURE-IX: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
23.07.2014, ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN
PLANNER, KOZHIKODE.
Crl.M.C.No.4835/2017
ANNEXURE-X: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
26.05.2015 IN WP(C) NO.15333 OF 2015.
ANNEXURE-XI: A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY
CERTIFICATE DATED 08.06.2015, ISSUED BY
THE SECRETARY, FEROKE GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
ANNEXURE-XII: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
ADANGAL REGISTER MAINTAINED AT THE
FEROKE VILLAGE OFFICE.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S TO JUDGE
AL/-
