Kerala High Court
Bobby Kuruvila vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:65451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025/5TH BHADRA, 1947
W.A.NO.1291 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2021 IN W.P(C) NO.7692
OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
BOBBY KURUVILA
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.KURUVILA, KARUVELITHARA HOUSE,
MITHRAKARI PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689 595
BY ADV.SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
BY ADV.SRI.B.DEEPAK
BY ADV.SRI.VISHNU CHANDRAN
BY ADV.SRI.RALPH RETI JOHN
BY ADV.SRI.APPU BABU
BY ADV.SMT.SHIFNA MUHAMMED SHUKKUR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 TOMIN J. THACHANKARY
HOUSE NO.32/2899, THACHANKARY HOUSE,
THAMMANAM P.O., POONITHURA VILLAGE,
COCHIN 682 032
3 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
BY ADV.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
BY SRI.S.U.NAZAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (CRIMINAL)
BY ADV.SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:65451
(VIGILANCE)
BY SMT.REKHA S., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.S.RAJEEV
BY ADV.SRI.V.VINAY
BY ADV.SRI.M.S.ANEER
BY ADV.SRI.SARATH K.P.
BY ADV.SRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
BY ADV.SRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
BY ADV.SMT.DIPA V.
BY ADV.SRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
BY ADV.SRI.AZAD SUNIL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.08.2025, THE COURT ON 27.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:65451
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in W.P(C).No.1291 of 2021 is the appellant before
us in this writ appeal that impugns the judgment dated 15.09.2021 of a
learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition. The brief facts
necessary for a disposal of this writ appeal are as follows;
The facts in brief:
2. The appellant is stated to be an anti-corruption crusader who
has been relentlessly fighting against corruption and nefarious activities
of government servants including the 2nd respondent herein. In the writ
petition, he impugned an order dated 28.01.2021 of the State
Government in the Vigilance department whereby the State Government
had accorded sanction for a further investigation in Crime
No.VC3/2007/SCE by invoking Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the "Code"] and entrusting the
investigation to another Special Investigation Unit. It was his contention
in the writ petition that the State Government could not have passed
such an order at a point in time when the criminal proceedings initiated
against the 2nd respondent had reached a stage where the final report
had already been filed before the jurisdictional Special Court concerned,
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:65451
and the 2nd respondent had already approached the said court with an
application seeking discharge and thereafter, on its dismissal,
approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition that was
ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant also appraised the
writ court of the fact that he had approached this Court at various
stages during the course of investigation of the case against the 2 nd
respondent and had obtained orders from this Court directing an
expeditious completion of the investigation initiated against the 2 nd
respondent. It was the specific case of the appellant therefore that the
impugned order of the State Government was one that was passed to
favour the 2nd respondent and to help him to protract the investigation
so that the proceedings would not reach a stage where it would affect
his career progression as a Police Officer in the State Police Force.
The impugned judgment:
3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found
that inasmuch as the appellant was not the complainant at whose
instance the investigation against the 2 nd respondent had been initiated,
or a person who had any direct connection with the case, he did not
have the locus standi to maintain a writ petition impugning the
Government Order in question. The learned Judge also found that the
State indeed had the power to order a further investigation of a case and
the existence of the said power could not be denied merely because
there was a possibility of misuse of that power. He was also of the view
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:65451
that unless an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power was made out
by [sic] those in charge of investigation, the further investigation could
not be thwarted by the High Court by interference in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The arguments before us:
4. In the appeal before us, the contentions of Sri. John S. Ralph
and Ms. Liz Johny, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, briefly stated, are as follows:
● It cannot be said that the appellant does not have the locus standi to
impugn a Government order that had the effect of unnecessarily
prolonging the investigation against the 2 nd respondent accused, and
that too at the latter's instance. The appellant having approached this
Court at every stage when it was noticed that the investigation in
question was being stalled, and having obtained directions from this
Court against the respondent investigating agencies to complete the
investigation at the earliest could not have been seen as a stranger to
the proceedings. In support of the said proposition, reliance is placed
on the judgments in Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.),
Sindri v. Union of India and Ors. - [(1981) 1 SCC 568]; Chiranjit
Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Ors. - [1950 SCR 869];
T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and another - [AIR 1954 SC 440];
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) represented
by its Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the Association v.
Union of India and Ors. - [(1981) 1 SCC 246].
● The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge has in fact found
that the concept of locus standi is alien to criminal jurisprudence in our
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:65451
country for it is well established that it is the State that prosecutes a
case against an accused on behalf of a victim. However, having
acknowledged this aspect in the impugned judgment, the learned Judge
erred in holding that the appellant could not maintain the writ petition
impugning the Government Order directing a further investigation in the
matter, more so when the charges against the 2 nd respondent accused
involved corruption while in public office. Reliance is placed on the
decisions in Bandhua Mukthi Morcha v. Union of India and Ors. -
[(1984) 3 SCC 161]; Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India
and another - [1998 (1) SCC 226].
● The State Government did not have the power to issue directions for
a further investigation in the matter through another special
investigation unit especially when the investigating agency had already
filed a final report before the jurisdictional Special Court and the 2 nd
respondent accused had submitted to that jurisdiction and approached
the said court with a discharge petition that was dismissed. Further,
while it is no doubt true that the State may direct a further investigation
to be undertaken at any stage, the power to direct such further
investigation can be exercised only if the investigating agency comes
across new/fresh information. In the instant case, there was no claim by
the investigating agency that it had come across fresh information and
hence the State Government could not have directed a further
investigation merely on the request of the 2 nd respondent accused, and
by blindly accepting his contention that he had such material with him.
This is more so because it is trite that an accused can have no say in the
appointment or the manner of functioning of an investigating agency.
Reliance is placed on the decisions in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @
Deepak & Ors. - [(2013) 5 SCC 762]; Rashmi Sundrani v. State of
U.P. & Anr. - [2024 SCC Online All 7440]; K.Vadivel v. V.K.Shanthi
& Ors. - [2024 SCC Online SC 2643].
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:65451
● On the merits of the representation preferred by the 2 nd respondent
accused before the State Government, it is submitted that there was no
new material that was brought to the notice of the Government for
seeking a further investigation in the matter. The material shown in the
representation, as not considered by the investigating agency, was in
fact adverted to in the order of the jurisdictional court while dismissing
the application for discharge preferred by the 2 nd respondent. It was
evident therefore that the attempt of the 2nd respondent, who was a high-
ranking Police Officer in the State, was only to prolong the investigation
against him so that the proceedings against him would not stand in the
way of his career progression.
5. Per contra, the submissions of Sri. A. Rajesh, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) appearing on behalf of the State
Government are as follows:
● The State Government has the power to order further investigation
even after a final report has been filed by the investigating agency
before the jurisdictional judicial magistrate. Reliance is placed on the
decisions in State of Bihar and Another v. J. A. C. Saldanna and
Others - [1980 KHC 591] and Reghuchandrabal M. R. v. State of
Kerala and Others - [2009 (3) KHC 755].
● On the aspect of locus standi of the appellant, it is submitted that in
criminal matters this court would be slow in permitting persons who do
not have any nexus with the criminal proceedings to join as parties in
the proceedings or to challenge those proceedings before a
constitutional court. Reliance is placed on P. S. R. Sadhanantham v.
Arunachalam and Another - [1980 KHC 686]; Sanjai Tiwari v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - [2020 KHC 6699]; Janata
Dal and Others v. H. S. Chowdhary and Others - [1991 KHC 1163]
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:65451
and Vinod Mathew Wilson v. Union of India - [2024 KHC 395].
● Relying on a note enumerating the steps taken by the investigating
agency during the period from the date of the impugned Government
order upto the present, it is submitted that the investigating agency has
come across fresh material that would support the prosecution in the
proceedings before the trial court. It is prayed in the alternative that
even if this Court were to quash the impugned Government order on any
ground, liberty may be reserved to the Prosecution to file a
supplementary final report before the jurisdictional judicial magistrate
for the purposes of the trial. Reliance is placed on the decisions in
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others - [2012 KHC 4747]
and Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph
and Others - [2022 KHC 6253].
6. The submissions of Sri.B.Raman Pillai, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, are as follows:
● The appellant is a person who has a number of criminal cases
registered against him in various Police stations in Alleppey District and
cannot therefore be seen as a bona fide crusader against public
corruption. It is contended that the writ petition filed by him was
nothing but a ruse to vent his personal vendetta against the 2 nd
respondent who had arrested him in connection with an offence while he
was a jurisdictional Police officer. The appellant therefore lacked the
locus standi to maintain the writ petition as rightly found by the learned
single judge.
● As for the legality of Ext.P1 order passed by the Government, it is
submitted the order directing further investigation was passed after
consulting the Advocate General of the State and hence there was no
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:65451
illegality in the same. That apart, it is trite that the State Government
has the general power of supervision over the prosecution conducted by
the Investigating agencies and hence the argument regarding absence
of power in the State Government to issue such an order has to be
rejected. Reliance is placed on the judgment in State of Bihar & Anr.
v. J.A.C Saldhana & Ors - [(1980) 1 SCC 554].
Discussions and Findings:
7. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the
pleadings in this case and referred to the precedents cited across bar.
At the outset, we deem it apposite to deal with the aspect of
locus standi of the appellant to move the writ petition since that was the
ground that was relied upon by the learned single judge to dismiss the
writ petition. The rules of standing are essentially designed to weed out
frivolous litigation from courts and to ensure that there is no abuse of
the process of the court. As was recently observed by the Supreme
Court in the context of public interest litigations, while public interest
litigations serve as effective tools for addressing the grievances of the
public, it must be carefully scrutinised to prevent misuse or abuse by
those with ulterior motives. The courts must look beyond the surface to
assess whether the litigation has been genuinely initiated in the interest
of the public or as a result of mischief. This is because the essence of
PIL lies in its aim to remedy genuine public wrongs or injuries rather
than being driven by personal vendetta or malice [Noida Toll Bridge
Co. Ltd. v. Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association &
Ors. - [(2025) 6 SCC 717]].
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:65451
8. In the context of criminal cases, it has been observed by the
Supreme Court in M. R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala and Ors. - [2024
SCC Online SC 3373] that since an offence is considered to be a wrong
committed against society, and the prosecution against the accused
person is launched by the State, it becomes the duty of the State to get
the culprit booked for the offence committed by him. If the State fails in
this regard, a party having a bona fide connection with the cause of
action, and who is aggrieved by the order of a court, cannot be left at
the mercy of the State and without any option to approach a judicial
forum for seeking justice. In such cases, therefore, the court will
ordinarily find in favour of the party approaching it if it finds that the
litigation is not driven by personal vendetta or malice.
9. On the facts before us, we find that the appellant has been
agitating against the delay occasioned by the investigating agency in
completing the investigation into the complaint alleging possession of
assets disproportionate to known sources of income lodged against the
2nd respondent, for over a decade. He has also secured directions from
this Court in writ petitions filed by him in the past, and when those
directions were not complied with, he had approached this Court with a
contempt petition against the investigating officers of the respondent
State. We cannot therefore accept the finding of the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment that the appellant did not have the
necessary standing to maintain the writ petition before this Court. This
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 11 ::
2025:KER:65451
is more so because we cannot find it in ourselves to ignore the fact that
the allegations against the 2nd respondent are serious in nature and
relate to corruption while holding a public office in the Police
Department of the State. As was observed by the Supreme Court in
Vineet Narain (supra), the lack of probity in public life leading to
corruption has an adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from
the IMF and World Bank, and hence the highlighting of corruption in
public life through the medium of PIL by invoking judicial review should
be frequent. We are therefore of the view that the appellant had the
necessary locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the
Government order that directed a further investigation to be conducted
after almost five years since the investigating agency lodged a final
report before the jurisdictional Special Court. The writ petition
preferred by the appellant had to be seen as in continuation of his
efforts at ensuring an expeditious completion of an investigation against
the 2nd respondent accused.
10. Moving now to the contention of the appellant that the State
Government did not have the power to issue the Government Order
dated 28.01.2021 according sanction to conduct a further investigation
in Crime No.VC3/2007/SCE under Section 173(8) of the Code by
entrusting the investigation to another Special Investigation Unit, we
find from a perusal of the said Government Order that it was issued in
response to a representation dated 23.11.2020 preferred by the 2 nd
respondent who was the accused in the crime referred above. What we
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 12 ::
2025:KER:65451
find most perplexing is that the sanction for further investigation
appears to have been granted for the mere asking, and without
examining the merits of the allegation raised by the 2nd respondent that
material evidence in his favour was ignored by the investigating officer.
While we are aware of the judicial precedents that clarify that the State
Government has a general power of supervision over criminal
investigations undertaken by an investigating agency appointed by it,
and that such power extends to issuing directions for further
investigation even after a final report is submitted before the
jurisdictional court, we are at a loss to understand how the State
Government could have exercised such a power to direct further
investigation more than four years after the laying of the final report,
and that too at the instance of material brought to their notice by an
accused person who had already approached the jurisdictional court
with a discharge petition that was eventually dismissed. It is a settled
principle under our criminal jurisprudence that an accused has no right
to dictate the manner and method by which an investigation must be
conducted. As per the scheme of the Code, save under certain
exceptional circumstances, the accused has no right of participation
during the course of the investigation of a proceeding instituted on a
police report till the investigation culminates in the filing of a final
report under Section 173(2) of the Code, or in a proceeding instituted
otherwise than on a police report, till the process is issued under
Section 204 of the Code.
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 13 ::
2025:KER:65451
11. There is also nothing in Section 173(8) of the Code to suggest
that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any direction for
further investigation is made [Union of India and Another v.
W.N.Chadha - [1993 Supp (4) SCC 260]]. The Code only permits an
investigating agency seeking a further investigation into a crime, to
approach the jurisdictional court concerned for such directions, and that
too only at the specified stages, for it is only the jurisdictional court, and
no other authority, that can issue such directions once the proceedings
reach the stage concerned. It is against the backdrop of the above
scheme of the Code that we find the State Government to have issued a
direction for further investigation by another special investigation unit,
merely on the request of the accused person. In our view the State
government did not have the power to issue such an order and, even if it
did, the power was not exercised in the manner contemplated under law.
The Government order dated 28.01.2021 was therefore clearly vitiated
by legal mala fides.
A matter of concern:
12. Before parting with this case, we might express our concern
with certain disturbing aspects of this case. We note from the pleadings
before us that the complaint against the 2 nd respondent before the
Vigilance department of the State was preferred as early as in 2002.
After a quick verification/preliminary enquiry, a report was filed by the
Vigilance authorities before the State Government on 11.07.2007.
Immediately thereafter a crime was registered bearing
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 14 ::
2025:KER:65451
No.VC3/2007/SCE. The investigation into the crime continued for almost
six years till the laying of the final report before the Special Court,
Trichur where the case was numbered as C.C.No.22/2013. The case was
later re-numbered as C.C.No.348/2016 before the Special Court,
Muvattupuzha consequent to the establishment of a new court in
Muvattupuzha and the transfer of the case file to that court. Still later,
the case was transferred to the Special Court, Kottayam on the request
of the 2nd respondent, and numbered as C.C.No.3/2020 before that
Court. In the meanwhile, the appellant herein had approached this
Court through W.P(C).No.36179 of 2005 seeking an expeditious
completion of the investigation against the 2 nd respondent. That writ
petition was dismissed after recording the submission of the Public
Prosecutor that the enquiry would be completed and a factual report
submitted to the Government within six months from the date of the
judgment viz. 27.11.2006. Thereafter, noticing that the preliminary
enquiry report had been filed before the Government on 11.07.2007, this
Court by order dated 29.07.2010, closed the Contempt Case [CCC
No.592/2010] that had been filed in the meanwhile by the appellant,
alleging non-compliance with the directions in W.P(C).No.36179 of 2005.
While doing so, this Court expressed the hope that the final report after
completion of the investigation by the Vigilance police would be filed
before the Special Court expeditiously. As already noticed, the final
report was laid before the Special Court only in 2013.
13. Even thereafter, there was considerable delay in the
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 15 ::
2025:KER:65451
proceedings before the Special Court. Alleging that the delays were
caused at the instance of the 2 nd respondent accused, the appellant
herein preferred complaints dated 15.08.2017 and 08.08.2018 before
the Chief Justice of this Court and the Judge holding supervisory charge
over the Special Court concerned. When the Special Court took up the
case for consideration thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a petition
under Section 239 of the Code seeking an order of discharge. That
petition was dismissed by the Special Court by a detailed order dated
29.05.2020. The said order deals specifically with the contentions of the
2nd respondent that many aspects of his case had not been looked into by
the investigating agency. At any rate, challenging the said order the 2 nd
respondent approached this Court through a criminal revision petition
[Crl.R.P.No.399 of 2020]. When the appellant herein got himself
impleaded in the said revision petition, the 2 nd respondent sought
permission of this Court to withdraw the revision petition after reserving
his liberty to impugn any order framing charges against him, as and
when passed by the Special Court. Accepting his request, this Court by
order dated 18.12.2020 dismissed Crl.R.P.No.399 of 2020 as withdrawn
subject to the liberty reserved as mentioned above. It is significant that
the 2nd respondent had in the meanwhile already approached the State
Government through his representation dated 23.11.2020 seeking a
direction for further investigation, based on substantially the same
material that was relied upon before the Special Court while moving his
petition under Section 239 of the Code seeking a discharge. It was this
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 16 ::
2025:KER:65451
representation that was acted upon by the State Government while
passing the impugned Government order.
14. We have deemed it necessary to narrate the above facts only
to highlight the conduct of the 2 nd respondent, who was till recently a
high-ranking Police Officer in the Police Department of the State, in
deliberately causing a procrastination of the investigation and the
framing of charges against him. The Government order impugned in
these proceedings, which we have found to be vitiated in law, does little
to inspire a citizen's confidence in our criminal justice system. If the
State, whose duty it is to bring offenders to justice, takes sides with an
accused and permits him to dictate the manner in which the
investigation against him is to progress, it will be antithetical to the
concept of 'the rule of law' which has been recognised as a basic feature
of our Constitution. In our role as the 'sentinel on the qui vive'
entrusted with the duty of safeguarding the rights of our citizens, we
cannot permit such indiscretions on the part of the State Executive.
Conclusion:
In the light of the above discussions, we allow this Writ Appeal by
setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and
allow the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P1 Government order
impugned therein. While doing so, however, we take note of the fact
that the further investigation as directed by the State Government in
Ext.P1 order was in fact undertaken, and new material has been
W.A.No.1291/2021 :: 17 ::
2025:KER:65451
obtained by the investigating agency over the course of the last four
years when Ext.P1 order was in force. The said material cannot be seen
as vitiated merely because it was obtained in an investigation carried
out pursuant to an order that is now found to be illegal. In as much as
there was no stay order in force against the operation of the order
during the pendency of these proceedings, the de facto principle would
operate to legitimise the said material for the purposes of the criminal
proceedings that are to follow. We therefore direct that the Special
Court shall proceed expeditiously with the framing of charges against
the 2nd respondent/accused based on the final report already filed before
it by the investigating agency, read with any supplementary final report
that the investigating agency may choose to file immediately before the
jurisdictional Special Court after obtaining its permission. Taking note
of the period of time that has already elapsed in the matter, we would
request the jurisdictional Special Court to endeavour to complete the
trial of the case expeditiously, and at any rate within six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
prp/
