# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943**
**CRL.MC NO. 3667 OF 2021**
**(CRIME NO. 434/CB MPM/2010 OF CRIME BRANCH MALAPPURAM)**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 242/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS**
## **,MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 9:**
## **KRISHNAN PUTHIYATH**
**AGED 51 YEARS**
**S/O. CHELLIKUTTY, PUTHIYATH HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA P.O., KIZHISSERY, AREECODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS.**
**P.SAMSUDIN**
**M.ANUROOP**
## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**STATE OF KERALA**
**REPRESENTED BY TEH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME NO.434/CB MPM/2010 OF CRIME BRANCH (ECONOMIC OFFICENCE WING) MALAPPURAM).**
**SR.PP - SRI. HRITHWIK C.S.**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**2**
## **ORDER**
On 10.11.2009 on getting reliable information that dubious activities are being conducted in S.T Travels, Malappuram, which is functioning near the Passport office. The Circle Inspector, Malappuram and party conducted a search of the office and found out various suspicious documents which were fake, forged documents which manufactured for the purpose of obtaining passport and other travel documents. On the basis of the materials collected in the search, Crime No. 512 of 2019 was registered against three persons who were in the said office that is, Abdul Gafoor, Anoop and Premaraj alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468,471, 472 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, the police understood that it was a large scale operation done by a gang of persons who used to forge documents and everything was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by them and since it involved larger ramifications, the investigation was handed over to the Crime Detachment Bureaue and thus case was re-registered as Crime No.
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**3**
434/CB/MPM/2010 and investigation was taken over by the CBCID. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, where the case is now pending as C.C. No. 242 of 2021. There are 9 accused in the crime. The offence alleged are under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 409 read with 34 of the IPC. Petitioner is the 9[th] accused in the crime. Now seeking to quash the proceedings against him, he has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner is admittedly an office attendant attached to the Regional Transport Office, Malappuram. According to him the allegation is that, he had supplied some holograms, issued to the Regional Transport Office, dishonestly to the accused persons and such holograms were also seized from the possession of the coaccused. Thus he has been implicated with the aid of Section 120B of the IPC and specific allegation against him is that he had committed offence under Section 120B, 420, 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**4**
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner absolutely no material is available to connect the petitioner with the alleged commission of the crime. The case has been initiated against him on false, baseless and distorted facts. He has not committed any offence. The charge sheet has been made on unsupported materials. He is only an office attendant and is not expected to handle holograms. The prosecution has no case that he had stolen or unauthorizedly misappropriated the holograms issued to the Regional Transport Office. Being an office attendant he is only expected to do maintaining hygiene and hospitable working environment by keeping the office clean and tidy, for serving refreshments etc. He was never entrusted with holograms. The alleged documents produced by the prosecution before Court showing the holograms having been given to the petitioner do not bear his hand. The said hologram issue register does not bear his hand. The said register has been sent for expert opinion and the report has not been obtained and pending receipt of report, police filed the charge sheet which is also bad. Moreover, he has been
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**5**
inculpated on the basis of the confession statement of a co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. He has never been entrusted with the hologram; even Annexure-9 document indicates that he was issued holograms on 18.05.2009 and 26.05.2009. But on those days he was in check post duty and therefore the said materials also cannot be placed reliance on at all. According to him the officials of the regional transport office have indulged in manipulating office records to create materials against him; without the knowledge of the store keeper, head of the department and superior officers, a person in the rank of an office attendant cannot have access to the holograms. The petitioner has been implicated with mala fide intention with oblique motive. So the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel has reiterated the arguments incorporated in the petition. On the other hand the learned Senior Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. According to the
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**6**
Public Prosecutor, entire documents are now before Court and this Court cannot form any opinion on the correctness of it without looking at the documents or taking evidence.
6. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious. The specific allegation of the prosecution is that prior to November 2009, the accused persons had entered into criminal conspiracy, pursuant to the same, with the intention of making unlawful enrichment, forged and fabricated official documents like election identity cards, SSLC certificates, driving licenses, academic testimonials, marriage certificates, birth certificates and supplied to witnesses in the case to be furnished along with applications for passport and other travel documents and thereby deceived officials and made unlawful enrichment. The specific allegations against the petitioner who is the 9[th] accused is that he as the office attendant of the Regional Transport Office who was entrusted with the holograms, with intend to aid other accused persons, handed over the same to the co-accused and obtained unlawful enrichment thus he faces allegations under Sections 120 B, 420, 409 read with
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**7**
Section 34 of the IPC.
7. Before ascertaining the correctness of the contentions it is necessary to understand and appreciate the limitations of this Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In such a factual premise, the power of quashing a criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly, with circumspection and also only in rarest of rare cases. It is the extraordinary jurisdiction which does not confer the Court power to exercise in an arbitrary manner. It is also rights that High Court should not, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. usurp the jurisdiction of the trial Court. A proceedings pending before the subordinates courts can be quashed only when there are overwhelming reasons to think that it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. But such a power cannot be exercised to hold a parallel trial. In other words, if the contentions urged by the petitioner are taken into account, that would amount to conduct a parallel trial which cannot be justified. Unless grave illegalities are brought out, the superior Court cannot interfere in the matter at
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**8**
this stage. It is also settled by authorities that the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. This has been reiterated by the Apex Court in various decisions. [See the decisions reported in **R.P. Kapoor v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan AIR 1989 and SC etc. ]**
8. As noticed earlier the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he while working as an office attendant in the office of the RTO, Malappuram had unauthorisedly taken certain number of holograms which were entrusted with him for discharge of functions, dishonestly handed it over to some of the accused persons, who had misused it and thereby the said offences were committed. Of course, the petitioner was not arrested or questioned during the course of investigation. But his name was added as additional 9[th] accused on the basis of the statements given by other accused persons as well as on the materials collected by the prosecution. This Court is not expected to weigh the correctness or otherwise of the materials furnished before the trial
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**9**
Court. On the face of the materials it does not seem that the petitioner has been implicated falsely, without any basis at all. The learned counsel could not convince me that there was motive for the Investigating Officer to fabricate a false case or frame him in a false case. Moreover, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he was also part of a criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused persons and that he had handed over holograms entrusted with him, for dubious purposes. Therefore, the correctness of these allegations can be brought out only after taking evidence. Without facilitating the prosecution to prove the allegations it is not appropriate for this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to nip the allegations in bud.
9. The Apex Court has cautioned the High Courts that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 especially when final reports are sought to be quashed, it should be done with great circumspection. Here the materials do not suggest that there is any abuse of the process of Court and the petitioner is being prosecuted without any basis at all. If at all there are overwhelming materials
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**10**
to say that he is not bound to face trial, at the threshold itself the petitioner can move the trial Court seeking to discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not a shortcut; a parallel trial cannot be conducted by this Court and hence the Criminal Miscellaneous Case lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. Dismissed.
Sd/- **K. HARIPAL JUDGE**
RMV/12/10/2021
Crl.M.C.No.3667 of 2021
**11**
## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3667/2021**
## **PETITIONER ANNEXURE**
|**Annexure A1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.512/2009 OF**|
|---|---|
||**MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION.**|
|**Annexure A2**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 434/CR/10 OF**|
||**CBCID MALAPPURAM.**|
|**Annexure A3**|**TRUE COPY OF REPORT TO INCLUDE THE PETITIONER AS**|
||**ACCUSED.**|
|**Annexure A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF HOLLOW GRAM**|
||**REGISTER AND THE MAHASAR.**|
|**Annexure A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH MAHASAR FOR THE HOUSE SEARCH**|
||**OF THE PETITIONER (ALONG WITH TRUE TYPED COPY).**|
|**Annexure A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND INFORMATION OBTAINED**|
||**BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT.**|
|**Annexure A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF THE**|
||**PETITIONER.**|
|**Annexure A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT 4.11.2004.**|
|**Annexure A9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REGARDING DATES OF**|
||**HOLOGRAMS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.**|
|**Annexure A10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER.**|
