High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of; liberty granted to a...

Ponnu Prabhaghar v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.28870 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2021-04-16
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking further investigation in Crime No.519 of 2019. If such a request is made, the Magistrate shall pass a reasoned order, considering the principle that cognisance does not fetter the Magistrate from ordering further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, as supported by Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Malaviya v. State of Gujarat.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to approach the Magistrate for further investigation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ponnu Prabhaghar

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The State Police Chief, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Assistant Commissioner of Police, C Branch, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
  • The Principal, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Dr. Venugopal S. Reddiar, USA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Mini M. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Suman Chakravarthy (Senior Govt. Pleader)
  • • P. Vijayakumar (ASG for CBI)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ponnu Prabhaghar filed WP(C) No.28870 of 2020 challenging the investigation into Crime No.519 of 2019 at Vanchiyoor Police Station. The petitioner alleges that the 6th respondent, belonging to the forward caste Hindu Reddiyar community, secured admission to MD General Medicine at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram on the basis of forged community and nativity certificates, fraudulently obtaining a National Overseas Scholarship for students belonging to SC/ST categories. The FIR and final report (Ext. P2) list offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 494, 420 and 198 IPC, with cognisance taken under Section 494 IPC; the case is pending as CC No.831 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-XI, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner contends that the investigation has been lethargic and flawed: documents were not seized, crucial witnesses not examined, and forged documents and benefits derived from the false claim were not adequately pursued. He argues cognisance was taken in contravention of Section 198 Cr.P.C., and seeks a de novo investigation by a Special Investigation Team. The respondents concede flaws but submit that a de novo investigation cannot be ordered; the remedy lies in approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate for further investigation. The High Court acknowledges flaws but refuses to direct de novo investigation, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for further inquiry, keeping in mind the principle that cognisance does not bar further investigation as laid down in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Malaviya v. State of Gujarat.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 494 IPCSection 465 IPCSection 468 IPCSection 471 IPCSection 420 IPCSection 198 Cr.P.CSection 156(3) Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • There cannot be a direction to conduct de novo investigation merely on the de facto complainant or victim pointing out flaws; the remedy is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for further investigation.
  • Mere taking of cognisance does not fetter the Magistrate from ordering further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
  • Remedy for investigating authorities' flaws lies in a properly motivated application for further investigation to the Magistrate.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that there are serious flaws in the investigation—failure to seize relevant documents, not recording crucial witness statements, and pursuit of a forged claim by the 6th respondent. He submits that cognisance under Section 494 IPC was improperly taken in light of the bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C. and seeks a de novo investigation by a Special Investigation Team.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge some flaws in the investigation but contend that a de novo investigation cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The remedy lies in an application to the jurisdictional Magistrate for further investigation, and not in directing a fresh investigation by the police at this stage.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v. State of Gujarat[(2019) 17 SCC 1]PositiveThe Apex Court held that mere taking of cognisance does not fetter the Magistrate from ordering further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and that such power can be exercised either suo motu or on application; the present court relies on this proposition to permit further investigation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ponnu Prabhaghar v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.28870 OF 2020(G)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **PONNU PRABHAGHAR AGED 45 YEARS TC 27/3107, RYSA VEEDU, MIDS LANE, NEAR JUBILY HOSPITAL, THYCADU VILLAGE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, KERALA-695034.** **BY ADV. SMT.MINI.M.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** - **2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, C BRANCH, POLICE GROUND, CV RAMAN PILLAI RD., THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA.** - **4 THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN-686668.** - **5 THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695011.** - **6 DR. VENUGOPAL S. REDDIAR, 4903 BROADMOOR ST APT 85, MISSION, KS 662021452, U.S.A., PHONE NO.(319)-341-5723, (586) 757-6724, (810)757-6724, EMAIL ID PANSIGHT@GMAIL.COM REDDIAR@YAHOO.COM** 2 ## **W.P.(C) No.28870 of 2020** **R1-3, R5 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **ASG P.VIJAYAKUMAR FOR CBI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD** **ON 09-03-2021, THE COURT ON 16-04-2021 DELIVERED THE** **FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C) No.28870 of 2020** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 16[th] day of April **,** 2021 **The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Vanchiyoor Police Station. It was alleged that the 6[th] respondent, who belongs to the forward caste Hindu Reddiyar community, had secured admission for MD General Medicine at Government Medical College, Thiruvannathapuram, claiming to be a person belonging to the Kondareddy community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe Community in Tamil Nadu. The false claim was made on the strength of forged community and nativity certificates. The 6[th] respondent fraudulently obtained National Overseas Scholarship for students belonging to SC/ST category also. It was alleged that the 6[th] respondent contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was subsistence and had thereby committed the offence under** **W.P.(C) No.28870 of 2020** 4 **Section 494 of IPC. The petitioner's complaint resulted in Crime No.519 of 2019 being registered at the Vanchiyoor Police Station for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 494, 420 and 198 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed Ext.P2 final report and the Judicial First Class Magistrate-XI, Thiruvananthapuram took cognisance of the offences mentioned above. The case is now pending as C.C.No.831 of 2020.** **2. The writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the lackadaisical manner on which the investigation was conducted and final report filed. It is alleged that no effort was taken by the investigating officer to seize the relevant documents and question the crucial witnesses with respect to the fraud committed by the 6[th] respondent, forgery of certificates and other documents, the benefits received by the 6[th] respondent based on his false claim etc. It is** **W.P.(C) No.28870 of 2020** 5 **contended that the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offences without application of mind, which is evident from the court having taken cognisance of the offence under Section 494 of IPC despite the specific bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C, The petitioner therefore prays for a** _**de novo**_ **investigation of the crime by constituting a special investigation team.** **3. Learned Senior Government Pleader fairly submits that a scrutiny of the case diary indicates certain flaws in the investigation, which may benefit the accused in his defence, but such flaws would not entitle the petitioner to demand** _**de novo**_ **investigation. That, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional court with an application seeking further investigation.** **4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the** **W.P.(C) No.28870 of 2020** 6 **petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, I find substance in the contention urged by the petitioner, of there being flaws in the investigation. It is settled law that there cannot be a direction to conduct** _**de novo**_ **investigation, merely on the de facto complainant or the victim pointing out certain flaws in the investigation. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader, remedy of the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court seeking further investigation.** **In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram seeking further investigation in Crime No.519 of 2019 of Vanchiyoor Police Station. If such request is made, the learned Magistrate shall pass a reasoned order thereon, keeping in mind the decision in** _**Vinubhai Haribhai**_ **W.P.(C) No.28870 of 2020** 7 _**Malaviya and others v. State of Gujarat [(2019) 17 SCC 1]**_ **wherein the Apex Court has held that mere taking of cognisance does not fetter the Magistrate from ordering further investigation in exercise of the power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and that such power can be exercised either** _**suo motu**_ **or on application, on being convinced about the need to do so.** **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/16.04.2021 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** 8 **W.P.(C) No.28870 of 2020** **EXHIBIT P1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 6.3.2019. EXHIBIT P2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.831/2020.**