Kerala High Court
Jamil Mohammed vs The State Police Chief on 30 September, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 1
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 10250 OF 2023
CRIME NO.1215/2023 OF Adimaly Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
JAMIL MOHAMMED
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
ERACHAMVEETTIL,
ORUMANAYOOR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680512
NOW RESIDING AT VILLA #P76,
CAMINO-3, DUABILAND,
DUBAI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SMT.ANIMMA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
IDUKKI, PIN - 686501
3 NISHAD MON
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KATTAPANA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685508
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ADIMALI POLICE STATION,
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 2
2024:KER:72371
ADIMALI, PIN - 685561
5 MR. ABBAS
ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ADIMALI POLICE STATION, ADIMALI,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561
6 SHEMI MUSTHFA
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O OF MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA KHANI RAWTHER,
SHEMI MANSIL,
VETTIMUKAL P.O, ETTUMANOOR, PIN - 686631
7 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
*8 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(CRIME BRANCH) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
*9 DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
(CRIME BRANCH) IDUKKI 685602
*10 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE-II,
CRIME BRANCH IDUKKI UNIT,
THODUPUZHA 685584
*(ADDL RESPONDENTS R8 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 10.06.2024 IN CRL.M.APPL. NO.2/2024)
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEES P.K.
ADV.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C. Nos.6037/2024, 6639/2024,
6695/2024 & WP(Crl.)No.619/2024, THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 3
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6037 OF 2024
CRIME NO.16/2024 OF CBCID, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 AND 8:
1 SHAKIR ASHARAF
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. ASHARAF,
RAHANA MANZIL, 4/91,
MEPPARAMBA P.O., PALAKKAD PIN - 678001
NOW RESIDING AT
SILVER BUILDING APARTMENT 1402,
ABU SHAGHARA, UAE
2 AMEELA BABU
AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. SHAKIR ASHARAF,
RAHANA MANZIL, 4/91,
MEPPARAMBA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
NOW RESIDING AT
SILVER BUILDING APARTMENT 1402,
ABU SHAGHARA, UAE
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SRI.BHARATH MOHAN
SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 4
2024:KER:72371
CRIME BRANCH, THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685581
3 SHEMI MUSTHAFA
SHEMI MANZIL,
VETTIMUKAL P.O., ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEES P.K.
ADV.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.ADITHYA VARMA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 5
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6639 OF 2024
CRIME NO.277/2024 OF Manarcaud Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.V.SURESH
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VASAVAN,
VAVATHIL HOUSE,
MANARKAD,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686019
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SMT.ANIMMA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANARKAD POLICE STATION,
MANARKAD, PIN - 686019
3 MR. MURALI
THE THEN DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MANARKAD, KOTTAYAM,
NOW WORKING AS DYSP
CYBER CELL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 6
2024:KER:72371
4 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
KOTTAYAM SUB DIVISION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 7
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6695 OF 2024
CRIME NO.460/2024 OF Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 JAMIL MOHAMMED
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
ERACHAMVEETTIL,
ORUMANAYOOR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680512
NOW RESIDING AT VILLA #P76, CAMINO-3,
DUABILAND, DUBAI.
2 SHANAVAS
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDULKHADAR,
KOCHIDAPALLIKALAYIL,
ETTUMANOOR P.O.
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
3 K.V.SURESH
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VASAVAN,
VAVATHIL HOUSE,
MANNARKKAD,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686019
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SMT.ANIMMA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 8
2024:KER:72371
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION,
ETTUMANOOR, PIN - 686631
3 MR. MURALI
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM,
NOW WORKING AS DYSP, CYBER CELL,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
4 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
KOTTAYAM SUB DIVISION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
5 SHEMI MUSTHFA
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O OF MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA KHANI RAWTHER,
SHEMI MANSIL, VETTIMUKAL P.O,
ETTUMANOOR, PIN - 686631
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEES P.K.
ADV.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.ADITHYA VARMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 9
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 619 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 JAMIL MOHAMMED
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
ERACHAMVEETTIL,
ORUMANAYOOR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680512
NOW RESIDING AT VILLA #P76,
CAMINO-3, DUABILAND, DUBAI.
2 SHANAVAS
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDULKHADAR,
KOCHIDAPALLIKALAYIL,
ETTUMANOOR P.O.
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
3 K.V.SURESH
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VASAVAN,
VAVATHIL HOUSE,
MANNARKKAD,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686019
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SMT.ANIMMA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 MR. KARTHIK IPS
AGED 44 YEARS
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 10
2024:KER:72371
(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS),
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
3 MR.MURALI
AGED 55 YEARS
(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS),
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION,
ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
5 SHEMI MUSTHFA
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O OF MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA KHANI RAWTHER,
SHEMI MANSIL,
VETTIMUKAL P.O, ETTUMANOOR, PIN - 686631
6 THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
REPRESENTED BY FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE,
NEDUMBASSERY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683111
7 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEES P.K.
ADV.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC
SRI.ADITHYA VARMA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 11
2024:KER:72371
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. Nos.10250/2023, 6037/2024, 6639/2024,
6695/2024 & W.P.(Crl.) No.619/2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2024
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in three different crimes registered
at different police stations. Primarily they seek to quash the crimes
registered against them. Petitioner in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and those
in Crl.M.C No.6037/2024 seeks to quash FIR No.1215/2023 of Adimaly
Police Station, while the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.6695/2024 seek to
quash FIR No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station. The petitioner in
Crl.M.C No.6639/2024 prays for quashing the FIR in Crime No.277/2024
of Manarkad Police Station. In W.P(C) No.619/2024 petitioners pray for
constituting a special team to investigate into FIR No.460/2024 of
Ettumanoor Police Station. Since defacto complainant in the first two
crimes is the same person and some of the accused are also common
cases arising out of those crimes are to be disposed of together. The
third crime was allegedly detected during the search in one of the other
two crimes and hence the said case is also to be disposed of together.
2. The details, including the pleadings of each case, are given below
separately, to appreciate the controversy:
2024:KER:72371
Pleadings in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and Crl.M.C No.6037/2024 (FIR No.1215/2023).
3. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 is the first accused,
while the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.6037/2024 are arrayed as accused 2
and 8 in FIR No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station, which has now
been renumbered as FIR No.16/2024 of Crime Branch, Idukki.
Petitioners primarily seek to quash the crime registered against them.
Other consequential reliefs of restraining coercive action against the
accused have also been sought.
4. According to the allegations in the said FIR, while the defacto
complainant was coming downhill in his Land Rover Defender Car
bearing registration No.TO-623-KL-9627 from Mankulam to Ettumanoor
in the evening on 16.09.2023, a Toyota Innova Car bearing registration
No.KL-53-G-2480 travelling in the same direction, attempted to collide
with the Defender vehicle with intent to topple it. The defacto
complainant alleged that if his driver had not swerved the vehicle, the
vehicles would have collided with each other and his car would have
toppled down into the valley, injuring him fatally and thereby the
accused allegedly committed the offences under section 120(b) read with
section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The crime
was registered only on 30.09.2023, after 14 days of the incident and
subsequently, the investigation was handed over to the District Crime
2024:KER:72371
Branch, who thereafter added additional offences under sections 120B of
S. 302 and S. 307 IPC as well.
5. Petitioner alleges that at the time of the alleged incident, he was
abroad and that he had no knowledge at all of such an incident.
According to him, a small road traffic accident between two vehicles is
being attempted to be converted into a serious offence with ulterior
purposes and a fake case is being concocted to trap him using the
influence of the defacto complainant who was his erstwhile partner. It
was alleged that despite this Court's direction to issue a notice under
section 41A Cr.P.C, the police published a lookout notice in the
newspapers and that too, in a crime based on assumptions.
6. A Statement dated 21-06-2024 has been filed by the Dy.S.P
Crime Branch, Idukki, in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 stating that the
investigation conducted so far revealed that the accused had entered
into a criminal conspiracy to kill the complainant at various places and a
report altering the offences was filed on 16-03-2024 incorporating
sections 120B of 302, 307, 201 and section 34 IPC, in place of 120B,
308 and 201 IPC. The statement also alleges that the first accused was
absconding and therefore lookout circulars were issued against him. In
the meantime, the first accused came down to Kerala on 02-06-2024
and in view of the order of the Supreme Court, he was not arrested. The
investigating officer further states that quotation teams are involved in
2024:KER:72371
the case and also that the accused had secretly followed the complainant
to various places and the second accused had even purchased an air
pistol and stayed at various hotels under fake names for committing the
crime. The investigating officer has also alleged that the first accused
was the master brain behind the crime and that even the arrested
accused has not co-operated with the investigation. According to the
investigating officer, the accused had installed an application in the
phones called 'Comera App' and the arrangements were being monitored
through the said application.
7. In the objection filed by the defacto complainant in Crl.M.C
No.10250/2023, he has stated inter alia that he had four business
partnerships with the first accused and since disputes arose between
them, a settlement was arrived at as per Annexure R6(C). As per the
terms of the settlement, the defacto complainant had issued 14 post-
dated cheques, of which 12 had already been honoured and therefore
the motive alleged by the first accused is without any basis. It is further
alleged that petitions have been filed before this Court to defeat the
process of law and to tarnish the credibility of the investigation team.
Pleadings in W.P.(Crl.) No. 619/2024 & Crl.M.C No.6695/2024, (FIR No.460/2024).
8. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in FIR No.460/2024 of
Ettumanoor Police Station. The defacto complainant alleges that
pursuant to a conspiracy, the third accused had on 13.02.2024, with
2024:KER:72371
intent to compel the withdrawal of Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimali Police
Station and Crime No.158/2024 of Palakkad Town South Police Station,
sent a WhatsApp voice message to the defacto complainant's friend by
name Geo Jacob, threatening the defacto complainant and his family
members including threats to destroy his establishments, and thereby
the accused committed the offences under section 120B read with
section 506 of IPC.
9. In the writ petition, petitioners seek the constitution of a
special investigation team to investigate into the said crime while in
Crl.M.C No.6695/2024, they seek to quash the FIR and also the
proceedings initiated under section 130 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile
section 107 Cr.P.C). According to the petitioners, the entire crime is the
result of a malafide attempt of the police along with the defacto
complainant to somehow or the other arrest the petitioners. It is alleged
that when the Supreme Court had protected the first petitioner from
being arrested, the police issued a lookout circular in this crime which
involves only a bailable offence and took him into custody from the
airport and later arrested him. Petitioners contend that even the alleged
voice message is not available and no threat of any nature is revealed.
Further, the complaints given in writing to authorities is alleged to be
threats intended to destroy establishments of the defacto complainant.
10. In the statement filed by the investigating officer dated
2024:KER:72371
20-06-2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No.619 of 2024, it is averred that on
13-02-2024, the third accused had, pursuant to a conspiracy with
accused 1 and 2, telephoned the defacto complainant's friend to frighten
him and to snatch money and also to destroy the business owned by the
defacto complainant. The crime was registered by the Ettumanoor Police,
pursuant to a petition submitted to the State Police Chief by the defacto
complainant on 26-02-2024. As part of the Investigation, a search was
conducted at the residence of the third accused on 03-04-2024 and they
found several bottles of foreign liquor and Indian made foreign liquor
and hence FIR No.277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station was registered
alleging offences under the Abkari Act, 1077. The investigating officer
further states that pursuant to the Lookout Circular issued in Crime
No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station, it was informed from the
Nedumbassery Airport on 02-06-2024 at 8:30 PM that the first accused
had landed at Cochin Airport. Thereafter the police party reached the
Airport at 02.00 am on 03-06-2024 and since he did not co-operate with
the investigation, his mobile phones which were handed over to one
Sri. Sudeesh was seized and arrested the first accused at 01.48 pm on
03-06-2024. It was further stated that since the order of the Supreme
Court referred only to Crime No.1215/2023, the first accused was
arrested and interrogated in Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police
Station. The investigating officer further alleges that the third accused
2024:KER:72371
(petitioner No.3) is involved in 20 criminal cases under different police
stations and is a person who is included in the KAAPA list of rowdies.
11. The petitioner has filed a reply statement in W.P.(Crl.)
No.619/2024, stating that the complaint has been filed with ulterior
motives and the crime was registered on 15-03-2024 alleging that the
voice message was sent on 13-02-2024 by the third accused, the friend
of the defacto complainant. Though the liquor seized from the house of
the third accused is not illicit liquor and only the offence under section
13 of the Abkari Act would apply at the most, for possessing excess
quantity of liquor, a false case has been registered incorporating serious
offences. It is also stated that the police had clearly avoided stating the
time of release of the first accused from the Ettumanoor Police Station
after registering his arrest at 1:48 PM and also asserted that the first
petitioner was released only at 8:30 PM, which can be identified from the
CCTV footage directed to be retained by this Court.
12. A statement has been filed on behalf of the sixth respondent
Bureau of Immigration on 18-07-2024, pursuant to the direction of this
Court on 11-06-2024. In the said statement it is mentioned that the
first accused was handed over to Nedumbassery police pursuant to the
LOC issued by the District Police Chief, Kottayam. It is further stated that
the LOC deletion request was sent by the District Police Chief, Idukki, on
12-06-2024 and the District Police Chief, Kottayam on 17-06-2024 and
2024:KER:72371
both LOC's were deleted on the subsequent day. The copies of the LOC
deletion requests were produced in a sealed cover as they are allegedly
secretive in nature while the LOC generation requests were not able to
be produced since they had already been deleted.
13. Though an affidavit of the District Police Chief, Kottayam was
directed to be filed, it was filed by the Officer now in office and not by
the person who directed the issuance of the Lookout Circular. The
affidavit states that though the investigating officer made efforts to trace
the whereabouts of the first accused it was learnt that he was staying
abroad and therefore a proforma for issuing a lookout circular was
submitted on the strength of the base report received from the then
investigating officer.
Pleadings in Crl.M.C No.6639/2024 (FIR No. 277/2024).
14. Petitioner in Crl.M.C No. 6639/2024 is the sole accused in Crime
No.277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station. He is the third accused in FIR
No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station. The FIR alleges that while
the investigating officer searched the house of the third accused in
connection with FIR No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station, it was
revealed that the said accused had, without any authorisation, stored in
his house 7 litres of foreign liquor and 10 bottles of 750 ml of Indian
made foreign liquor to be used only by the soldiers and 25 sample
bottles of liquor to be used and sold only at Pondicherry and thereby
2024:KER:72371
committed the offences under sections 55(a), 58, 13 and section 63 of
the Abkari Act, 1077. Petitioner seeks to quash the said FIR and also
seeks to quash the proceedings initiated under section 130 of the BNSS,
2023.
15. According to the petitioner, the uncontroverted allegations
in the FIR would not make out any of the offences alleged and that the
crime has been registered due to malafides. Petitioner points out that in
the remand report, it was stated that he is involved in 19 crimes which
was false as all those crimes had either been quashed, or referred as
false or acquitted by the court much earlier than the registration of the
present crime. Petitioner alleges that the attempts of the police are
malicious, with ulterior motives and they intend to arrest the first
accused to compel him to agree to the illegal demands of the defacto
complainant. Petitioner has also raised fingers at the unholy nexus
between the investigating officers and the defacto complainant.
16. I have heard Sri. Joy George, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri. P. Narayanan, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of
the State and Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel instructed
by Sri. Rameez P.K., learned Counsel for the defacto complainant.
17. It is evident from the circumstances that the defacto
complainant in Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station is the
same as in Crime 460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station and both those
2024:KER:72371
crimes have some interconnection. The first accused in both the above
crimes are the same while the third accused in Crime No.460/2024 is the
sole accused in Crime No. 277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station. The
petitioners have alleged that all these crimes have been registered as an
abuse of the process of law with malafide and ulterior intentions.
Petitioners also allege that the defacto complainant is a highly influential
person with the police force and the crimes have been registered to
ensure that the petitioners yield to his illegal demands.
18. During the course of hearing, since this Court felt doubts
regarding the bonafides of the investigation conducted, the case diaries
of the three crimes were called for and were meticulously perused.
Analysis of Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station.
(subject matter of Crl.M.C No. 10250/2023 & Cr.M.C No. 6037/2024)
19. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention certain
circumstances that are undisputed. Sri. Jameel Muhammed - the first
accused in Crime No.1215/2023 and Crime No.460/2024 was the
business partner of Sri. Shemi Mustafa - the defacto complainant in
both those crimes. They had establishments at United Arab Emirates and
a hotel project at Mankulam near Munnar. The wife of Sri.Shemi Mustafa
and Sri. Jameel Muhammed had jointly purchased a landed property at
Kottayam. Due to differences of opinion, the partnership business was
wound up and a settlement was entered into at Dubai with approval from
2024:KER:72371
the Dubai Courts. 14 post-dated cheques were issued by the defacto
complainant in favour of Sri. Jameel Muhammed, as part of the
settlement arrangement and they were being encashed without any
default.
20. Be that as it may, Sri. Jameel Muhammed - the petitioner in
Crl.M.C 10250/2023 alleges that the road accident on 16-09-2023 is a
staged drama created by the defacto complainant with the connivance of
various police officers to trap him with an ulterior motive. According to
him, the hollowness of the crime registered and the nature of offences
alleged based on assumptions and surmises are not only curious but also
mysterious and reflects the malafides and the clout of influence wielded
by the defacto complainant. Petitioner contended that he had no role in
the incident and that he is being trapped in the crime using a few
planted persons.
21. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that, initially,
Sri.Jameel Muhammed had approached this Court in Crl.M.C
No.8972/2023 challenging the registration of FIR No.1215/2023.
However, by order dated 31.10.2023, a learned single Judge of this
Court disposed of the said case by directing the District Police Chief,
Idukki to consider the said petitioner's representation and to pass
appropriate orders and inform the decision to him. It was further
directed that, if the presence of the petitioner was necessary, the
2024:KER:72371
Investigating Officer should issue notice under section 41A Cr.P.C.
22. Surprisingly, without complying with the directions issued
under Annexure A4, a lookout advertisement was published in a leading
newspaper daily on 14.11.2023, alleging that Sri. Jameel Muhammed
was absconding. Notice under section 41A Cr.P.C had never been issued
to him as directed in Annexure A4 order of this Court. It is curious to
note that the said Sri. Jameel Muhammed was, even according to the
defacto complainant, having business interest in UAE all along and is
stated to be absconding in the advertisement. Though the official
respondents tried to justify their action by submitting that Annexure A4
order of this Court was not known to the police while publishing the
advertisement, the said contention can only be looked upon with a pinch
of salt. Annexure A6 is a document dated 17-11-2023 issued to the
petitioner referring to Annexure A4 order wherein a reference is also
made to an office letter dated 15-11-2023. Even otherwise, the learned
Public Prosecutor had appeared on behalf of the respondents in
Annexure A4 and even if the petition was disposed off at the admission
stage, still, information would have immediately been conveyed to the
police station concerned. Even otherwise, the principle of deemed notice
is also attracted. Thus the conduct of the respondents raises suspicion.
23. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that, while perusing
the case diary in Crime No.1215/2023, this Court noticed that several
2024:KER:72371
pages had been removed from the first volume. For example, page 90 is
written in pencil over page 103, page 221 over 303, page 229 over 319,
page 571 over 605 and many other pages likewise. Though this Court
had directed on 31-10-2023 in Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 to issue notice
under section 41A Cr.P.C to the petitioner, a request for issuing a Blue
Corner Notice is seen from the case diary to have been generated on
25-11-2023. Curiously that letter is not seen in the case diary. The
copy of the memorandum of Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 filed by the
petitioner earlier, is also not seen. Certain new additions and
incorporation of fresh pages are also noted, wherein justification is seen
made for not complying with the directions in the order dated 31-10-
2023.
24. In the meantime, Sri. Jameel Muhammed filed Crl.M.C
No.10250/2023 and though initially he was granted an order on
29.11.2023 protecting him from coercive steps, later the interim order
was varied on 12.12.2023 after observing that the said interim order
need not be continued. Challenging the order vacating the interim
direction, petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the
Supreme Court as SLP No.594/2024. On 17.05.2024, the said Special
Leave Petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court granting interim
protection to the petitioner till 10.06.2024 observing that the petitioner
would be at liberty to pray for further protection from the High Court, if
2024:KER:72371
the case is not disposed of on that day. When Crl.M.C No.10250/2023
came up on 10.06.2024, on the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that despite the order of protection granted by the
Supreme Court, petitioner was arrested from the Airport when he landed
on 02.06.2024, this Court felt that there was something more to what
meets the eye, and hence the interim protection was extended.
25. Subsequently, the respondents clarified that the petitioner
was taken into custody from the Nedumbassery Airport on 02.06.2024
not on the basis of Crime No.1215/2023, but on the basis of Crime
No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station registered on 15-03-2024 and
that he was kept in custody almost for a day before being released on
bail. It is now revealed, quite startlingly too, that in the said crime which
alleges only bailable offences another lookout circular was issued by the
District Police Chief, Kottayam on 22.06.2024, five days after the
Supreme Court granted interim protection to the petitioner. On the
basis of the said LOC, the Immigration Officers detained the petitioner
on 02-06-2024 and handed him to the Ettumanoor Police. The said
conduct of the respondents raises suspicion.
26. Later, this Court had on 11-06-2024, directed the Bureau of
Immigration represented by the Foreigners Registration Officer, to
produce the request for LOC issued by the District Police Chief,
Kottayam. Time was repeatedly sought by the said respondent and
2024:KER:72371
finally, after the petitioner filed a contempt petition, a statement was
filed mentioning that the request for LOC and other details had been
deleted from the system pursuant to the request of the District Police
Chief, Kottayam on 18-06-2024. The said request is undoubtedly after
this Court issued a direction on 11-06-2024. These circumstances also
raise suspicion.
27. It is also seen from the documents produced in the sealed
cover by the sixth respondent that the LOC issued by the District Police
Chief, Idukki was requested to be withdrawn only on 17-06-2024, that
too, by stating that since the CBCID, Thodupuzha had already requested
for another LOC to be issued, the earlier LOC requested by him ought to
be withdrawn. There is no reference in the withdrawal request, to the
Order of the Supreme Court in the SLP and further that the CBCID had
taken over the investigation as early as in March 2024. These
circumstances prick the judicial conscience and create doubts regarding
the bonafides of the investigation.
28. Be that as it may, the allegations in the two crimes - FIR
No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station, which is now renumbered as
FIR No.16/2024 of Crime Branch, Idukki and FIR No.460/2024 of
Ettumanoor Police Station, reveals curious incidents. In the former
crime, registered 14 days after the occurrence, the allegations are based
on several imponderables - If the vehicles had collided and if the vehicle
2024:KER:72371
in which the defacto complainant was travelling had fallen down the
ravine and if the passengers inside the car had sustained injuries, and if
they were fatal, they would have succumbed to those injuries. On the
above allegations, Sri. Jameel Muhammed and two others were initially
charged with section 308 IPC and thereafter with sections 120B of 302
and 307 IPC.
29. The scene mahazar prepared reveals that the incident in
Crime No.1215/2023 occurred on the tarred road, that too at a point
where there was a granite stone culvert, situated at a distance of 04.20
meters from the place of incident. The scene plan as noted from the case
diary tallies with the above. Further, the case diary reveals that there
was no damage at all to any of the vehicles involved in the alleged
accident. A photograph in the case diary reveals only a minor scratch to
the vehicle of the defacto complainant, that too, on the bumper and
without even any dent. Coupled with the above, is the lookout
advertisement published in the newspaper and the request for issuing a
lookout circular in Crime No.1215/2023 addressed to the Immigration
Authorities, that too, despite this Court's direction to issue a notice
under section 41A Cr.P.C. The lookout circular issued in a bailable
offence registered at Ettumanoor, after petitioner was protected from
arrest in Crime No.1215/2023 and thereafter taking him into custody on
02-06-2024 also reflects the highhanded action of the police. This Court
2024:KER:72371
is prima facie satisfied that the entire records reveal a concerted attempt
on the part of the police to implicate the petitioner in Crl.M.C
No.10250/2023 in a crime and malafides loom large in registering the
crime and making such wild and sweeping allegations. In this context,
this Court bears in mind the repeated allegations and complaints filed by
the said petitioner that some of the witnesses and accused have been
planted in the instant crime to rope in the petitioner as an accused.
30. Though some statements of witnesses have been recorded
by the Investigating Officer alleging a conspiracy to commit murder,
there is nothing on record to indicate any overt act committed by any of
the accused, except for the alleged scraping of two vehicles on
16.09.2023, which did not even cause any damage or even a dent on the
vehicle. The attempt on the part of the Investigation Officers to convert
what would have otherwise been an ordinary road traffic accident
involving offence under section 279 IPC has been, by a deft use of
words, converted into a case of conspiracy to commit murder and a
conspiracy to commit culpable homicide.
31. This Court is further satisfied that the issuance of a lookout
circular in Crime No.460/2024 was only to overcome the direction of the
Supreme Court granting interim protection to the petitioner from arrest.
The guidelines prescribed for issuing a lookout circular have been
delineated in the Office Memorandum of the Home Ministry dated
2024:KER:72371
22-02-2021, which was produced in a sealed cover. A reading of the
said circular reveals that the conditions required for issuing a lookout
circular in Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station were not in
existence to enable the Investigating Officer, to request for issuing a
lookout circular. Similarly, despite this Court's direction on 31-10-2023
in Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 to issue notice to the petitioner under section
41A Cr.P.C, the Investigating Officer as well as the District Police Chief,
Idukki, exceeded their authority in requesting for a lookout circular on
25-11-2023.
32. Even otherwise, malafides are further evident from the
circumstances that after petitioner arrived at the Nedumbassery
International Airport, Kochi on 02.06.2024, he was taken into custody at
2.00 am on 03-06-2024 and taken 60 Kms away to Ettumanoor and
recorded the arrest at 01.34 pm on that day itself. Since this Court had
already directed to secure the CCTV footage, the learned Public
Prosecutor was directed to make available the said CCTV footage which
reveals that the petitioner was released from police custody only at
07.58 pm, which is evident from the timing in the CCTV footage.
33. Though normally this Court would restrain itself from perusing
the case diary at the stage of an investigation, such a course was
necessitated in the instant case, since the judicial conscience of this
Court was seriously pricked at the manner in which the circumstances
2024:KER:72371
have unfolded. Some of the circumstances are mentioned since this
Court doubts the credibility of the investigation conducted so far into
Crime No.1215/2023.
34. In this context, the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel that the present petition to quash the FIR is not maintainable in
view of the earlier Crl.M.C No. 8972/2023, which resulted in Annexure
A4 order, is, according to me, legally not tenable. In the decisions in
Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
Another [(2019) 17 SCC 294 and in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2023 INSC 955], it was held that there
can be no blanket rule that a second petition under section 482 Cr.P.C
will not lie in any situation, as it depends on the circumstances of each
case. A subsequent application is maintainable in changed
circumstances. In the instant case, as mentioned in detail earlier, despite
the direction in Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 to issue a notice under section
41A Cr.P.C, when the police went ahead to issue lookout advertisement
and a circular, certainly the circumstances had changed enabling the
petitioner to approach this Court again. The contention regarding
maintainability is rejected.
35. Be that as it may, though doubts have arisen about the
manner of investigation and even the alleged crime itself, doubts by
themselves cannot be a reason to quash a criminal proceeding at the
2024:KER:72371
threshold. Of course, when criminal proceedings are initiated for
malafide purposes, the Court is empowered to quash even the FIR as
held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335).
However, at this stage, it cannot be held that the uncontroverted
allegations in the FIR do not make out any of the offences alleged
despite the doubts on its veracity. Considering the totality of
circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is too premature a stage
to arrive at a conclusion that the entire proceedings in Crime
No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station are liable to be quashed.
Bearing in mind the limitations for quashing an FIR at the threshold, this
Court declines to quash the FIR in Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police
Station.
36. Nonetheless, as observed earlier, the manner in which the
investigation has been conducted so far into Crime No.1215/2023 of
Adimaly Police Station, pricks the judicial conscience of this Court. The
materials do reflect, at least prima facie, that an insignificant or minor
road traffic accident which did not cause any damage to any of the
vehicles or injury to any person, is being catapulted into a major crime,
for some unknown reason. The investigation conducted by the local
police and even by the Crime Branch, Idukki do not inspire the
confidence of this Court and is seemingly tainted and unfair. The
investigation conducted so far cannot be said to be unbiased as well.
2024:KER:72371
The fundamental right of the petitioners to have a fair investigation has
thus been severely affected.
37. In the decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others v.
State of Gujarat and Another [(2019) 17 SCC 1] it has been
observed that "What ultimately is the aim or significance of the expression
"fair and proper investigation" in criminal jurisprudence? It has a twin
purpose: Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in
accordance with law; secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has
to be to bring out the truth of the case before the Court of competent
jurisdiction. ....... Bringing out the truth by fair and investigative means in
accordance with law would essentially repel the very basis of an unfair, tainted
investigation or cases of false implication."
38. In the decision in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and
Others [(2013) 5 SCC 762] it has been observed that a suspect or an
accused has a right to have a just and fair investigation apart from trial.
This principle has been stated to flow from the constitutional mandate
contained in Art.21 and Art.22 of the Constitution of India. The Court
went on to observe that where the investigation is ex facie unfair,
tainted, malafide and smacks of foul play, the Courts would set aside
such an investigation and direct fresh or de novo investigation and, if
necessary, even by another independent investigating agency. After
noticing that this is a power of wide plenitude and, therefore, has to be
exercised sparingly, the principle of rarest of rare cases was made
2024:KER:72371
applicable. Unless the unfairness of the investigation is such that it
pricks the judicial conscience, the Court should be reluctant to interfere
in such matters to the extent of quashing an investigation and directing
a 'fresh investigation'.
39. In Vinay Tyagi's case, (supra) the Supreme Court had
referred to the decision in Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi)
[(2010) 6 SCC 1] wherein it was observed that it is not only the
responsibility of the investigating agency, but also that of the Courts to
ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the
freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. An equally
enforceable canon of criminal law is that high responsibility lies upon the
investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in a tainted or unfair
manner. The investigation should not prima facie be indicative of a
biased mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law
as nobody stands above law dehors his position and influence in the
society."
40. On a consideration of the circumstances mentioned earlier,
this Court is satisfied that the investigation conducted into Crime
No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station and later by the Crime Branch in
FIR No.16/2024 of Crime Branch, Idukki, are liable to be set aside and a
fresh investigation be ordered. In view of the doubts expressed by this
Court regarding the credibility of the investigation done so far, it is
2024:KER:72371
necessary that a team comprising police officers of utmost and
impeccable integrity be appointed as a Special Investigation Team.
Having regard to the possibility of a malafide action, interests of justice
demand that this Court protect the petitioners from any illegal arrest and
if in case the new investigating team requires the presence of the
petitioners, notices under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 shall be issued.
Analysis of Crime No. 460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station
(subject matter of (W.P.(Crl.) No. 619/2024) and Crl.M.C No. 6695/2024)
41. As far as Crime No.460/2024 is concerned, on a reading of
the FIR, it is evident that the ingredients of the offence under section
506 or under section 120(b) are not made out. An offence under S.503
require the following ingredients to be satisfied:
"(1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is
interested.
(2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound
to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is
legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat."
42. The third accused is alleged to have conveyed a threat on
13-02-2024 by sending a voice message to Sri. Geo Jacob on the mobile
phone. There is nothing to indicate that there was any conspiracy or any
2024:KER:72371
threat to commit the offence alleged, that too, of the nature
contemplated under sections 503 IPC. Merely because some complaints
were sent to officials by the accused regarding alleged encroachments
into forest properties by the defacto complainant while constructing a
resort, the said complaints cannot be treated as an attempt to destroy
the business establishment of the defacto complainant. Moreover,
threats of destruction of the business of a person when conveyed to a
third party will not attract the offence of criminal intimidation. Section
503 IPC draws a distinction between threats hurled directly and threats
hurled through another person. When threats of injury to the property
are hurled at a third party, the offence of criminal intimidation will not be
attracted. Thus, the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR do not make
out any of the ingredients of the offence alleged.
43. In order to attract section 506 IPC, the message allegedly
sent through WhatsApp must, to constitute criminal intimidation,
threaten injury to the person or his reputation or property. The harm
threatened must be illegal and not a threat of taking legal action.
Further, the threat to be indictable, it must be made with intent to cause
alarm to the complainant. There is no mention of the details of the voice
message sent to Sri. Geo Jacob or the nature of the threat hurled at the
defacto complainant nor any allegation of alarm having been caused to
the defacto complainant. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when
2024:KER:72371
the accused intended to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not
matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the
accused to cause alarm must be evident. Reference to the decisions in
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
(2024 INSC 363) and Manik Taneja and Another v. State of
Karnataka and Another (2015) 7 SCC 423 are relevant.
44. The allegations in the FIR are too vague to constitute any
offence as alleged. The allegation is mainly against the third accused
while there is nothing to indicate the involvement of the first and second
accused and against whom there are no allegations even. Inclusion of
conspiracy to rope in the first and second accused is without any basis.
Further, except for a vague allegation of causing danger, there is no
reference to any injury threatened with intent to cause any alarm to the
defacto complainant. It is evident that the crime is registered with some
ulterior motive. In such circumstances, Crime No.460/2024 of
Ettumanoor Police Station is liable to be quashed.
Analysis of proceedings under section 130 of BNSS.
(Ann. A31 in Crl.M.C No. 6695/2024).
45. As regards the proceeding initiated under section 130 of
BNSS (erstwhile section 107 Cr.P.C) is concerned, it is evident on a
reading of Annexure A31 in Crl.M.C No. 6695/2024 that the show cause
notice issued is against established legal principles.
46. An apprehension of a breach of peace can only be based on
2024:KER:72371
the conduct of a party, either present or in the immediate past. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate, on receipt of the information regarding the
commission of an offence affecting the breach of peace or disturbing the
public tranquility or the likelihood of a person doing a wrongful act
affecting breach of peace or disturbing public tranquility, must be
satisfied that circumstances are existing justifying the initiation of
proceedings. If the Sub Divisional Magistrate is convinced, on such
enquiry conducted by him, on the basis of the information received, he
should state clearly about those circumstances in the order passed by
him under S.111 Cr.P.C, calling upon the person against whom
information has been received, to show cause against the execution of
bond as envisaged by the provision. If the order of the Magistrate does
not mention about the manner in which such satisfaction has been
arrived at regarding the apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance
of public tranquility, the person called upon to show cause will not be
able to comprehend the accusation against him. The order must also
reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and
the need for taking action under S.107 Cr.P.C for preservation of peace.
In the absence of such satisfaction, the proceedings initiated under the
provision will be vitiated. Moidu v. State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139),
Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala and Another (2015 (5) KHC 507) and
Girish P. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2009 (4) KHC
2024:KER:72371
929) are relevant in this context.
47. In the instant case, other than the existence of two crimes
under investigation, there are no materials to indicate that there is any
possibility of breach of peace. Hence, Annexure A6 order issued under
section 130 of BNSS is illegal and without authority.
Analysis of Crime No. 277/2024 of Manarcad Police Station.
(subject matter of Crl.M.C No. 6639/2024)
48. As far as FIR No.277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station is
concerned, the allegations reveal the commission of offences under
section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077. Though the search was conducted
in the house of the accused in Crime No. 460/2024, the revelation of the
commission of offences under the Abkari Act cannot be held to be
impossible. The question whether the bottles seized are illicit liquor or
not, cannot be decided by this Court at this stage. The seizure mahazar
has not mentioned the existence or non-existence of the seal of the
Beverages Corporation or of the Duty free shop. Of course, this Court
notices that in the statement of the Investigating Officer as well as in
the seizure mahazar there are references to the presence of other
members of the petitioner's family and staff in the house and their
names are also recorded. However, this Court is of the view that it is too
premature a stage to interfere as the investigation is still ongoing and
the contentions raised in this Crl.M.C is left open.
49. In the result, the following conclusions are arrived at:
2024:KER:72371
(i). The prayer for quashing the FIR in Crime No.1215/2023 of
Adimaly Police Station now renumbered as Crime No.16/2024 of District
Crime Branch, Idukki, sought in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and Crl.M.C.
No.6037/2024 is declined.
(ii). However, the investigation conducted so far in Crime
No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station, now renumbered as Crime
No.16/2024 of the District Crime Branch, Idukki, is set aside, and a
fresh investigation is directed. The earlier investigation conducted by
both agencies shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever.
(iii). Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and Crl.M.C. No.6037/2024 are
disposed of directing the State Police Chief to constitute a Special
Investigation Team, comprising of police officers of the State Crime
Branch with impeccable integrity under the supervision of an eminent
senior police officer to re-investigate Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly
Police Station. The said investigation team shall complete the re-
investigation and file the final report at the earliest and in a time bound
manner.
(iv). If the presence of the first accused in Crime No.1215/2023
of Adimaly Police Station is required, the investigating Officer shall issue
a notice under section 35(3) of BNSS 2023 (earlier S.41A Cr.P.C.) as
already directed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.M.C No.
8972/2023.
2024:KER:72371
(v). Crl.M.C No. 6695/2024 is allowed and all proceedings in
Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station and in Annexure A31
proceedings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 27-07-2024 are
quashed.
(vi). Crl.M.C No. 6639/2024 is dismissed refusing to interfere
with Crime No. 277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station.
(vii). W.P.(Crl.) No. 619/2024 is dismissed in view of the orders
in Crl.M.C No.6695/2024 and Crl.M.C No.6639/2024.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
2024:KER:72371
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10250/2023
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1215/2023 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION
REGISTERED U/S 120B R/W 308 IPC DATED
30.06.2023
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUES DATED 8.11.2023,
8.12.2023 AND 8.1.2024 DRAWN ON EMIRATES NBD
BANK, AL QUSAIS BRANCH, DUABI ISSUED BY THE
DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 1215/23 OF
ADIMALI POLICE STATION TO THE PETITIONER
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE
PETITIONER
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL MC NO
8972/2023 DATED 31.10.2023
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT STATE
POLICE CHIEF DATED 07.11.2023
Annexure A5(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE 1 ST PAGE OF THE
COMPLIANT NO. SPC 513/195450/2023/PHQ WITH
THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT AS
"DPC IDUKKI FOR ENQUIRY AND REPORT IN 10 DAYS
FOR SPC"
Annexure A5(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS PURSUANT TO
ANNEXURE A5 FROM THE STATE POLICE CHIEF AND
ADGP VIGILANCE
Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D4-
55289/2023/ID DATED 17.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE
ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI
Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION OF
LOOK OUT NOTICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED
14.11.2023
Annexure A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMVI REPORT OF THE
VEHICLES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE
ACCIDENT DATED 22.11.2023
2024:KER:72371
Annexure A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR OF THE
CRIME PREPARED BY THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE APPEAL (CRL)NO.594/24
DATED 17/05/2024
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 25.11.2023
FILED BY MY FATHER SUBSEQUENT TO ANNEURE-A5
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT STATE POLICE CHIEF VIDE NO.D2-
17758/24/PHQ DATED 2/2/2024
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT
NO.D2-59285/23/ID DATED 3/2/2024 ISSUED ON
BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE NEW FIR REGISTERED BY THE
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH
AS CRIME NO.16/2024 DATED 7/2/2024
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 31.03.2024 SENT
BY THE 2ND ACCUSED TO THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH,
IDUKKI WITH COPY TO SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CRIME BRANCH AND ADGP, CRIME BRANCH
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R6 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25/09/2023 BEFORE THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
KERALA
Annexure R6 (b) A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
DATED 09/05/2022 EXECUTED BETWEEN RESPONDENT
NO.6 / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND PETITIONER/
1ST ACCUSED
Annexure R6 (c) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHARE SALE AGREEMENT
VALIDATED BY DUBAI COURT
Annexure R6 (d) THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF GULF FIRST SHIPPING
AND LOGISTICS LLC MAINTAINED IN EMIRATES NBD,
DUBAI BANK
Annexure R6 (e) A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
DATED 25/07/2022
Annexure R6(f) A TRUE COPY OF SALE LETTER OF MR. JAMIL
MUHAMMED FOR SALE OF HIS SHARES IN GF HOTEL
AND RESORT PVT. LTD., MANKULAM DATED
03/07/2023
2024:KER:72371
Annexure R6 (g) A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF GF
Series HOTEL AND RESORT PVT. LTD. IN STATE BANK OF
INDIA (ACCOUNT NO. 42050348274) AND FEDERAL
BANK (ACCOUNT NO. 13030200002907)
Annexure R6 (h) A TRUE COPY OF WP(C)37735/2023 BEFORE THIS
HON'BLE COURT
2024:KER:72371
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure - I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1215/2023
OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION IN IDUKKI DISTRICT
DATED 30-09-2023
Annexure - II TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SAID
SHANAVAS TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI
DATED 20-10-2023
Annexure - III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.
8972/2023 DATED 31-10-2023
Annexure - IV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE SAID
SHANAVAS FROM THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
IDUKKI DATED 17-11-2023
Annexure - V TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SAID
SHANAVAS BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
IDUKKI DATED 24-11-2023
Annexure - VI TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
FATHER OF THE 1ST ACCUSED TO THE STATE POLICE
CHIEF DATED 7-11-2023 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF
THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
Annexure - VII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-11-2023 IN
Annexure -VIII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-12-2023 IN
Annexure - IX TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT DATED 17-05-2024 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO
Annexure - X TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE STATE
POLICE CHIEF TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO CRIME
BRANCH DATED 2-2-2024
Annexure -XI TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 16/2024
DATED 7-2-2024 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure - XII TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO THE DY.SP. OF POLICE, CRIME
2024:KER:72371
BRANCH DATED 01.04.2024 WITH COPY TO THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH
Annexure - XIII TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PASSPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Annexure - XIV TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION FILED BY
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALI POLICE
STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ADIMALI IN CRIME NO.
1215/2023 DATED 18.10.2023
Annexure - XV TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE REPORT DATED
2-11-2023 OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT
Annexure- XVI TRUE COPY OF THE LOOK OUT NOTICE DATED
10.11.2023 AGAINST THE 1ST PETITIONER
PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBUMI DAILY
Annexure - XVII TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE NO.
20/04 DATED 12.07.2004 ISSUED BY THE STATE
POLICE CHIEF
Annexure- XVIII TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
DATED 31-08-2010
2024:KER:72371
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
277/2024 OF MANARKAD POLICE STATION DATED
4/4/2024
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION DATED
04.04.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF
POLICE MANARKAD
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST SUBMITTED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3/4/2024
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE
DYSP KANJIRAPPALLY DATED 21.06.2024 IN
WP(CRL) 619/2024
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024
IN WP(CRL) NO. 619/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED
27.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 815/2024
DATED 08.06.2024 OF ETUMANOOR POLICE
2024:KER:72371
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
460/2024 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION DATED
15.03.2024 REGISTERED U/S 120B R/W SECTION
506 IPC
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE
TELEPHONE CALLS OF THE SAID GEO JACOB TO THE
3RD PETITIONER ON 21.11.2023 IN THE WRITTEN
FORMAT
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE
TELEPHONE CALLS BETWEEN THE 3RD PETITIONER
AND THE SAID GEO JACOB DATED 13.02.2024 IN
THE WRITTEN FORMAT
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE IDUKKI WITH COPY TO DYSP IDUKKI,
STATION HOUSE OFFICER ADIMALI POLICE STATION
ETC DATED 24.11.2023
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 01.04.2024
SEND BY THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.
1215/2023 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION WHICH WAS
RE-NUMBERED AS CRIME 16/2024 OF CRIME BRANCH
IDUKKI
Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER
Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE REPORT SUBMITTED
BY THE ADIMALI POLICE EVIDENCING THE SEIZURE
OF THE MOBILE PHONE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Annexure A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE REPORT OF THE
MOBILE PHONE BEARING NO. 9846331335 OF THE
3RD PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
04.04.2024
Annexure A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY DYSP
KANJIRAPPALLY IN WP (CRL). 619/2024 DATED
21.06.2024
Annexure A10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
2024:KER:72371
5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE KOTTAYAM LEADING TO THE REGISTRATION
OF ANNEXURE A1 CRIME 26-02-2024
Annexure A11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
06.01.2024 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST
Annexure A12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
10.01.2024 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE
THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE
BUREAU
Annexure A13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
06.01.2024 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
INCOME TAX
Annexure A14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
10.01.2024 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE
THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Annexure A15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
09.01.2024 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI
Annexure A16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
15.01.2024 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE
THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE
OFFICIALS AIDING FOR THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION
OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
15.01.2024 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE
THE VIGILANCE SP KOTTAYAM
Annexure A18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTRATION
AUTHORITIES KNOWING THE DETAILS OF LANDED
PROPERTIES OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN EXCESS OF
CEILING LIMIT
Annexure A19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE
3RD PETITIONER FROM THE GST DEPARTMENT DATED
25.05.2024
Annexure A20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCROACHMENT SKETCH
PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR DEVIKULAM
DEMARCATING THE ENCROACHMENT OF GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE
2024:KER:72371
CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESORT AT MANKULAM
Annexure A21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE
OFFICER TO THE TAHSILAR DEVIKULAM DATED
24.01.2024 ABOUT THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ON
THE PROHIBITED AREA
Annexure A22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK
SURVEYOR DATED 05.01.2024 TO THE TAHSILDAR
DEVIKULAM ABOUT THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION OF THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 01.01.2024 TO THE
TAHSILDAR LA FOR ENQUIRING ABOUT THE ILLEGAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT AT
MANKULAM
Annexure A24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE
IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT DATED 18.07.2024 IN
WP(CRL) 619/2024
Annexure A25 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTIVE NO. 20/04
DATED 12.07.2024
Annexure A26 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION OF THE
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DATED 31.08.2010 IN
RESPECT OF THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF CIRCULAR NOTICE AND ITS PERFORMA
Annexure A27 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME
COURT IN SLP 594/2024 DATED 17.05.2024
Annexure A28 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
18.07.2024 FILED BY ADVOCATE ROY GEORGE
BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ALONG WITH
CALL DETAILS
Annexure A29 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024
IN WP(CRL) 619/2024
Annexure A30 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024
IN WP(CRL) 619/2024
Annexure A31 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 3RD
PETITIONER DATED 27.07.2024
2024:KER:72371
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 619/2024
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.460/2024
OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION REGISTERED BY
THE 4 TH RESPONDENT DATED 15/03/2024
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME
NO.1215/2023 DATED 30/09/2023
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20/10/2023 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DARTED 31/10/2023
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 1
ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT
DATED 07/11/2023
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER
ADDRESSED TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED
25/11/2023
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29/11/2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.10250/2023
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
12/12/2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.10250/2023
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE APPEAL
(CRIMINAL) 594/2024 DATED 17/05/2024
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1 ST
RESPONDENT DATED 02/02/2024 VIDE ORDER NO.
D2-17758/2024/PHQ
Exhibit P11 THE ENDORSEMENT NO.D2-59285/23/ID DATED
03/02/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI ENDORSING
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME
NO.16/2024 OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, CRIME BRANCH DATED 07.02.2024
2024:KER:72371
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCIDK/7753/2023-C10 DATED 01/01/2024
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1568535/24
DATED 05/01/2024
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCROACHMENT SKETCH
PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR
Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.26/24 DATED
24/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANKULAM
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3
RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF
KERALA DATED 09/01/2024
Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3
RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE MINISTER,
STATE OF KERALA DATED 02/02/2024
Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3
RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
DATED 09/01/2024
Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3
RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
OF GST DATED 06/01/2024
Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3
RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT DIRECTOR DATED
10/01/2024
Exhibit P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3
RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) DATED 06/01/2024
Exhibit P23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3
RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT DATED 10/01/2024
Exhibit P24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2
ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT
DT. 15/01/2024 AGAINST THE SECRETARY,
MANKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND FOREST OFFICIALS
Exhibit P25 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
2024:KER:72371
THE 2 ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE, DT. 04/01/2024
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS
Exhibit P27 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5
TH RESPONDENT DATED 26/02/2024 BEFORE THE 2
ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P28 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF THE COMPLAINT
DATED 07/04/2024 FILED BY THE 3 RD
PETITIONER'S WIFE BEFORE THE 7 TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P29 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
277/2024 DATED 03/04/2024
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SEND BY THE 2 ND
ACCUSED IN EXHIBIT P2 TO THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH IDUKKI
EXPLAINING THE SCENARIO OF STAGED ROAD
ACCIDENT
Exhibit P31 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/11/2023
GIVEN BY THE 2 ND PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI
Exhibit P32 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS
SUBMITTED BY THE 2 ND PETITIONER DATED
13/04/2024 BEFORE THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
Exhibit P33 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS
SUBMITTED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER DATED
13/04/2024 BEFORE THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE
TELEPHONE CALLS OF THE SAID GEO JACOB TO THE
3RD PETITIONER IN THE WRITTEN FORMAT
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE
TELEPHONE CALLS BETWEEN THE 3RD PETITIONER
AND THE SAID GEO JACOB DATED 13.02.2024 IN
THE WRITTEN FORMAT
2024:KER:72371
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASAR DATED
03.04.2024
ANNEXURE 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.06.2024
RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE 1 SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY DYSP KOTTAYAM
DATED 11-06-2024
