Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

Rohith Giri v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(Crl).1349/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Bechu Kurian Thomas
Judgment Date
2024-01-04
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition dismissed. The court held that Article 226 cannot be used to issue blanket directions against FIR registration; reliefs claimed were not tenable at this stage. The dictum in TT Antony’s case would apply only when actual crimes are registered.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ROHITH GIRI

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by the Secretary to the Home Department, Thiruvananthapuram
  • THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, State Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram
  • THE SHO NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR
  • THE SHO WANDOOR POLICE STATION, WANDOOR
  • THE SHO VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, VAZHAKKAD
  • THE SHO NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
  • THE SHO, PANTHEERANKAVU POLICE STATION, PANTHEERANKAVU
  • SUGEESH S
  • SUNIL KUMAR K.
  • SINDHU T P
  • SIYAD KUNJU M
  • SALEEM ALI MULLAPALLALI
  • AJMAL THALIPAATTU
  • ZAKARIYA E
  • ABDUL RAUF K P
  • ABDUL NAZAR K
  • RAFEEQUE A
  • ABDUL ASEES O P
  • AKBAR K
  • NAVAF P
  • NASIB P
  • FAYIS MOIDEEN
  • SHAUKATH ALI T

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Praveen H.
  • • G. Hariharan
  • • K. S. Smitha
  • • Amal Dev D
  • • T. T. Shaniba
  • • Sneha M. S.
  • • Abhijith E.R.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C. S. Hrithwik (PP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Rohith Giri, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, has approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 challenging the registration of FIRs across the State on the same facts and seeking to restrain the State Police from registering further FIRs on the alleged identical set of facts. He also sought a direction to the State Police Chief to issue Section 41A notices under CrPC 1973 in lieu of arrest in any subsequent crime registered on complaints by respondents 8 to 23. The petitioner argues that respondents 8 to 23 are harassing him by repeatedly filing FIRs, despite final reports having been filed in only one case, thereby causing prejudice. He relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in TT Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 to contend that registration of new FIRs on the same facts is improper and contrary to law. The respondents’ counsel maintained that the power of investigation cannot be fettered by blanket directions and that every FIR must be assessed on its own allegations, with possible action under the law as and when filed. The Court observed that the relief sought would be premature and that Article 226 cannot be used to issue blanket directions against FIR registration. It emphasized that TT Antony’s dictum would apply only when crimes are registered. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and no blanket prohibition was granted.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 41AConstitution of India, Article 226

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Jurisprudence prohibits blanket directions under Article 226 in criminal investigation matters
  • Each FIR must be evaluated on its own merits and allegations
  • The decision in TT Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 is applicable to situations involving repeated FIRs on the same facts

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that respondents 8 to 23 are engaged in harassing him by filing FIRs across the State on the same facts, and that continuing registration of such FIRs would be unlawful and prejudicial. He seeks a direction to the State Police Chief to prevent registration of any further FIRs on the same facts as in Exhibit P2, and requests that Section 41A notices under CrPC be issued in place of arrest in any subsequent offence arising from complaints by respondents 8 to 23. He relies on TT Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 to argue that repeated FIRs on identical facts are contrary to law. He asserts that blanket directives would prevent harassment and ensure due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that Article 226 cannot be invoked to issue blanket directives against investigation or registration of crimes. Each FIR must be considered on its own allegations, and it would be premature to speculate that respondents 8 to 23 will file further complaints. The authorities cannot be bound by general orders; the proper course is to evaluate each FIR on its merits and to apply the law as and when crimes are registered. The aim is to prevent speculation rather than impede legitimate investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors.(2001) 6 SCC 181PositiveThe Court cited TT Antony to caution against blanket directives under Article 226; reliance on this principle supports dismissal of a blanket ban on FIR registrations.

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 Rohith Giri 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 14TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(CRL.) NO. 1349 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ROHITH GIRI, AGED 32 YEARS S/O SUBHASH GIRI, RESIDING AT MAHESH ENCLAVE, R/O 326, CHHAPRAULA, GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA, PIN – 201 009. ``` ``` BY ADVS. PRAVEEN.H. G.HARIHARAN K.S.SMITHA AMAL DEV D T.T.SHANIBA SNEHA M.S. ABHIJITH E.R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.`** - **`2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,VELLAYAMBALAM, CITY-THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 010.`** - **`3 THE SHO NILAMBUR POLICE STATION GUDALUR ROAD, NILAMBUR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 331.`** - **`4 THE SHO WANDOOR POLICE STATION THRIKKALANGODU, THIRUVALI WANDOOR KALIKAVU ROAD, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 328.`** - **`5 THE SHO VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION VAZHAKKAD P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673 640.`** - **`6 THE SHO NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION KANNUR ROAD, WEST NADAKKAVU, VELLAYIL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 011.`** - **`7 THE SHO, PANTHEERANKAVU POLICE STATION PANTHEERANKAVU, KERALA, PIN – 673 019.`** - **`8 SUGEESH S AGED 38 YEARS`** - **`S/O SUSHEELAN, KARUNYAM, VAZHAMUTTOM, PACHALOOR P.0, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 027.`** ``` WP(CRL.) 1349/2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` - **`9 SUNIL KUMAR K., AGED 43 YEARS S/O SUKUMARAN, KARUNDHALA HOUSE, BUNGALOWIN KUNNU, EDAKKARA P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 331.`** - **`10 SINDHU T P AGED 45 YEARS W/O RAMADASAN, KOUSTHOOPAM HOUSE, FEROKE P.O, CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 655.`** - **`11 SIYAD KUNJU M AGED 42 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, AYSHA MANSIL HOUSE, POOVATTUPARAMBA P.O, KOZHIKODE – 673 008.`** - **`12 SALEEM ALI MULLAPALLALI AGED 34 YEARS S/O MOOSA MULLAPALLI, MULLAPALLI HOUSE, PATTARKADAVU P.O, PANAKKAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 519.`** - **`13 AJMAL THALIPAATTU AGED 35 YEARS S/O MOIDEEN THALIPATTU HOUSE, MEENDATHUR P.O, THANALUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 307.`** - **`14 ZAKARIYA E AGED 40 YEARS S/O BASHEER ELAMBILATTU HOUSE, CHEMBAYIL PRAMBU, KALLAI P.O, VATTAMPOYIL, KOZHIKODE – 673 003.`** - **`15 ABDUL RAUF K P., AGED 31 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASAK, THARAMMAL HOUSE, NALLALAM P.O, CHERUVANUR, KOZHIKODE – 673 027.`** - **`16 ABDUL NAZAR K AGED 34 YEARS S/O UNNIYAN KUTTY, KAADABODAN HOUSE, THUVUR P.O,MAADOTHU, MALAPPURAM – 679 327.`** - **`17 RAFEEQUE A, AGED 35 YEARS S/O MOOSA MADATHIL HOUSE, POTHUR P.O, THALIMKUNDU, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 327`** - **`18 ABDUL ASEES O P, AGED 53 YEARS S/O ALAVI MUSALYAR, CHOORAPARA HOUSE, PARAPUR, MUTHUVALLUR, VILAYIL P.O, KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673 641.`** - **`19 AKBAR K S/O YUSUF, KULAPPURATH HOUSE, NELLAYA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 335.`** ``` WP(CRL.) 1349/2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 20NAVAF P AGED 27 YEARS S/O NOUFAL, PULIYYIL HOUSE, PAYYANAD P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 122. 21NASIB P AGED 38 YEARS S/O ABDULLA, PUNNAPALA HOUSE, KATTAPARA, MAMBADU P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 542. 22FAYIS MOIDEEN AGED 28 YEARS S/O KALAM, KARADAN HOUSE, THIRURANGADI P.O, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 306. 23SHAUKATH ALI T AGED 58 YEARS S/O MAMMOOTY, THANDILAN HOUSE, PALLIPADI, NADUVATH P.O KAATTUMUNDA, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 328. ``` ``` SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK (PP) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(CRL.) 1349/2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......…............................................. W.P.(Crl).No.1349 of 2023 …................................................ Dated this the 4[th] day of January, 2024 ## JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks for the direction commanding the State Police Chief to issue directions to prevent registration of any further FIRs against the petitioner on the same set of facts as in Ext.P2. Petitioner also seek for a direction to the 1[st] respondent to ensure the issuance of Section 41A notices under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of immediate arrest in any subsequent crime on the basis of complaints from respondents 8 to 23. 2. Petitioner claims to be a resident of Uttar Pradesh and is entangled in several criminal complaints across the State. He alleges that respondents 8 to 23 are intending to harass the petitioner by registering several FIRs throughout the length and breadth of the State. Despite various FIRs already filed by them, final report has been filed only in ``` WP(CRL.) 1349/2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` respect of one of the crimes, and that registration of further FIRs on the basis of the same set of facts is contrary to law as held by the Supreme Court in the decision in T.T.Antony - v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181. 3. Sri.Praveen Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the attempts of respondents 8 to 23 is only to harass the petitioner and to compel him to enter into settlement with the said respondents. He submits that further registration of the FIR on the same set of facts is contrary to law, and therefore, petitioner will be subjected to great prejudice, if repeated FIRs are filed. 4. Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the arms of the Investigating officer cannot be bound by general orders to be issued invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially since the petitioner is only apprehending the registration of FIR on the basis of complaints that may be filed by respondents 8 to 23. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well ``` WP(CRL.) 1349/2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` as the learned Public Prosecutor and on a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition, I am satisfied that the reliefs claimed cannot be granted. 6. Petitioner require this Court to issue a general direction not to register any FIR on the basis of alleged similar set of facts in Ext.P2. It is too premature to assume that respondents 8 to 23 may file complaints against the petitioner based on similar set of facts. Those are purely within the realm of assumptions and apprehensions. 7. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to issue blanket directions against registration of a crime. Time and again, the Supreme Court as well as this Court have deprecated the practice of issuing general directions, especially with respect to investigation and registration of FIRs. Each FIR will have to be appreciated on the basis of the allegations therein. 8. If the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of the dictum laid down in T.T.Antony’s case (supra), or any other position of law, the same is to be done as and when crimes ``` WP(CRL.) 1349/2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` are registered. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is dismissed. sd/BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/04/01/2024 ``` WP(CRL.) 1349/2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1349/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ## **`EXHIBIT P1`** ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 91/2022 OF PANTHEERANKAVU POLICE STATION DATED 08/02/2022. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS SCHEDULE IN CC 84/2023 BEFORE THE JFCM III KOZHIKODE DATED 13/01/2023. ``` ## **`EXHIBIT P2(A)`** - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS STATEMENTS IN CC 84/2023 BEFORE THE JFCM III KOZHIKODE DATED NIL.`** - **`EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 988/2023 AT NILAMBUR POLICE STATION DATED 5/09/2023.`** - **`EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 909/2023 AT WANDOOR POLICE STATION DATED 10/11/2023.`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 801/2023 AT VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION DATED 3/10/2023.`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1091/2023 AT NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION DATED 12/09/2023.`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 18/12/2023 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.7998/2023 WITH RESPECT TO CRIME NO. 988/2023 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION.`** - **`EXHIBIT P8`** - **`A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 18/12/2023 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 11067/2023 WITH RESPECT TO CRIME NO. 909/2023 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION.`** ``` WP(CRL.) 1349/2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P9A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 18/12/2023INBAILAPPLICATION NO.11064/2023 WITH RESPECT TO CRIME NO. 801/2023 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION ``` ``` EXHIBIT P10A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 18/12/2023 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 11084/2023 WITH RESPECT TO CRIME NO. 1091/2023 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P11A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED IN CRL MC NO. 1306/2022 BY THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE, DATED 10/08/2023 ``` TRUE COPY