High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-01-18Crl.M.C disposed of; directing final report to ...

Saji Varghese v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Narayana Pisharadi
Single Judge
Judgment Date: 2021-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court declined to quash the FIR at the initial stage and directed the investigating officer to file the final report in the jurisdictional court within two months. Pending interlocutory applications were closed. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the final report if necessary, and the matter was concluded with a direction to ensure expeditious completion of the investigation.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C disposed of; directing final report to be filed within two months; all pending interlocutory applications closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saji Varghese

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Balakrishnan, S/o Narayanan
District Collector and Chairperson District Tourism Promotion Council, Kannur
Secretary District Tourism Promotion Council, Kannur
Deputy Director, Department of Tourism, District Tourism Office, Kannur
Project Engineer, Department of Tourism, District Tourism Office, Kannur
Director, Department of Tourism Park View, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. John Mani (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.7953/2018) challenges Annexure-C order and Annexure-D FIR arising from allegations that, during the Palakkayamthattu Tourism Project works, the petitioner caused substantial financial loss to the government and benefited financially. The petitioner, Secretary of the District Tourism Promotion Council, Kannur, contends that quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is warranted and sought to safeguard the investigation from being unduly hampered. The matter originated from a complaint to the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, which, after a quick verification by VACB, forwarded the case for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and resulted in an FIR under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor informed the Court that VACB has completed the investigation and that sanction to prosecute has been granted, suggesting that there is material to support the offences. The Court noted the general principle that Section 482 quashing should not stifle legitimate investigations and should be employed only in rare, compelling circumstances, citing Teeja Devi and Vinod Raghuvanshi. Ultimately, the High Court directed the investigating officer to file the final report within two months, while allowing the petitioner to challenge it, and closed pending interlocutory applications. The order embodies a cautious balance between safeguarding legitimate investigations and avoiding abuse of process.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Section 120B IPCSection 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Kill a stillborn child (maxim) - caution against quashing at the threshold
Rarest of rare cases doctrine for quashing/criminal proceedings
Interference with investigation should be avoided; avoid stifling prosecution unless compelling circumstances justify

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Annexure-C order and the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent an unwarranted and possibly vitiated investigation, asserting malafide or lack of prima facie basis at this stage. Counsel urged that the court should not permit continuation of an investigation that may be improper or prejudicial. In the alternative, the petitioner sought a direction to the investigating officer to file the final report promptly, arguing for timely closure if the material does not establish a prima facie offence. The standard judicial principle invoked is that quashing is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, especially when investigation has reached a stage where evidence is being collected.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submitted that VACB had completed the investigation and that sanction to prosecute had been granted, with materials sufficient to establish a cognizable offence. The Public Prosecutor argued that quashing at this juncture would amount to stifling legitimate prosecution and that the court should not interfere with an ongoing investigation, citing settled jurisprudence and the need for a fair, complete inquiry. The response emphasised that the appropriate course is to permit the final report to be filed in due course while preserving the petitioner’s right to challenge it.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan	(2014) 15 SCC 221	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that quashing a cognizable-offence investigation at the threshold is highly exceptional and should be avoided unless compelling circumstances indicate malafide or vexatious prosecution.
Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora	(2013) 10 SCC 581	Positive	Cited to emphasize that at the initial stage of inquiry, courts should not embark upon a full-blown inquiry or weigh the probabilities of evidence; the uncontroverted allegations should prima facie establish the offence.

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 Saji Varghese v. State of Kerala and 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.7953 OF 2018(D)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 716/2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMNR. & SPECIAL JUDGE, KANNUR AT THALASSERY** **FIR IN CRIME NO.2/2017 OF VACB, KANNUR,** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **SAJI VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS S/O VARGHESE, CHIRATUVELIL (H), MANATHANA P.O, PERAVOOR, IRITTY, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN MANI** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA,REP BY PUBLIC PRESECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** - **2 BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, THONAKKAR THAKIDIYEL, VELLAD P.O., TALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR- 670 141.** - **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, KANNUR- 670001.** - **4 SECRETARY DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, KANNUR- 670 001.** - **5 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, DISTRICT TOURISM OFFICE, KANNUR- 670 001.** - **6 PROJECT ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, DISTRICT TOURISM OFFICE, KANNUR- 670 001.** - **7 DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 011.** ## **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI A RAJESH SPL PP VACB** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON 18.01.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 2 ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J** ************************ Crl.M.C.No.7953 of 2018 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2021 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner was the Secretary of the District Tourism Promotion Council, Kannur. 2. One Balakrishnan filed a complaint against the petitioner and two other persons in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery alleging that they committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court obtained a quick verification report from the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB). As per Anneuxre-C order, the Special Court found that the facts alleged in the complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offences. Therefore, the complaint was forwarded to the Dy.S.P, VACB, Kannur for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 3 Pursuant to Anneuxre-C order, Anneuxre-D FIR was registered against the petitioner and two other persons under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120B of IPC. This petition under Section 482 of the Code is filed by the petitioner for quashing Annexure-C order and Annexure-D FIR. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is not necessary here to narrate the allegations contained in the complaint filed against the petitioner or in Anneuxre-D FIR. Suffice it to state that the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused huge financial loss to the Government and gained pecuniary benefits to the accused persons in the execution of the works relating to Palakkayamthattu Tourism Project. 5. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 14.1.2021, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the VACB has completed the investigation of the case and the competent authority has granted sanction to prosecute the **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 4 petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are sufficient materials collected by the investigating officer to prove that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged against him. 6. Ordinarily, the power under Section 482 of the Code should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of the Code. If the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious (See **Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan : (2014) 15 SCC 221** ). It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not "kill a stillborn child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. When a prosecution at **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 5 the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. At this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein (See **Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora : (2013) 10 SCC 581** ). 7. If the position of law is as mentioned above with regard to quashing of FIR at the initial stage, it would almost be totally impermissible to quash it at a stage when the investigating agency has collected evidence against the accused and completed the investigation of the case and when it is about to file charge sheet against the accused in the court. 8. Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that a direction may be given to the investigating officer to file the final report without any delay. When this Court put a query to the learned Public Prosecutor with regard to the time within which the final report could be filed in **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 6 the competent court, after getting instructions in the matter, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer would be able to file the final report within a period of two months. 9. In the above circumstances, I find that it is only proper to give a direction to the investigating officer to file final report in the jurisdictional court within a period of two months. 10. Consequently, the investigating officer is directed to file final report in the case before the court concerned within a period of two months from today. The petitioner is granted liberty to take appropriate steps to challenge the final report after it is filed in the court concerned, if so advised. The Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. All pending interlocutory applications are closed. Sd/- ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** al/- **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :** ## **ANNEXURE A-** **TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P NO.716/2016 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THALASSERY.** - **ANNEXURE B- TRUE COPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT FILED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VACB, KANNUR.** - **ANNEXURE C- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P NO.716/2016 OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THALASSERY.** - **ANNEXURE D - TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.02/2017 OF V.A.C.B, KANNUR.** **ANNEXURE E- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRL.MC NO.5197 OF 2017.** - **ANNEXURE F- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE G- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/02/18 IN CRL.MC NO.5197 OF 2017.** **ANNEXURE H - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ALONG WITH ANNEX'S DATED 16/06/18 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY.** **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 8 **ANNEXURE-I-A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27.04/2016 TO THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.FRBL.** **ANNEXURE-J-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DTPC, KANNUR.** **ANNEXURE-K-A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DTPC, KANNUR DATED 16.01.2019.** **ANNEXURE-L-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.01/2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DTPC, KANNUR.** **ANNEXURE-M-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DTPC, KANNUR.** **ANNEXURE-N-THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION AWARDED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 26.01.2016.** **ANNEXURE–O-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DTPC, KANNUR.** **ANNEXURE P TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/9/2019 FILED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE Q A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3/10/2019 TO ANNEX.P MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 9 ## **ANNEXURE R** **A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 11/01/2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** ## **ANNEXURE S** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16/1/2019 TO ANNEX R MADE BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** **ANNEXURE T** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3/10/2019 MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** ## **ANNEXURE U** **A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14/1/2019 MADE UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE V A TRUE COPY OF 4TH RESPONDENT'S REPLY DATED 16/1/2019 TO ANEX.U.** **ANNEXURE W A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/9/2019 FILED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE X A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5/10/2019 TO ANNEX. W BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** - **ANNEXURE Y A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/5/2016 WRITTEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR, ANERT** - **ANNEXURE Y A A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/6/2016 MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO DIRECTOR, ANERT** **ANNEXURE YB A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/12/2016 WRITTEN BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO DIRECTOR, ANERT** **Crl.M.C.No.7953/2018** 10 **ANNEXURE Y C A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO DISTRICT ENGINEER, ANERT KANNUR IS PRODUCED HERE** **ANNEXURE Y D A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/2/2018 MADE BY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER, ANERT, KANNUR DISTRICT** **ANNEXURE Z A TRUE COPY OF THE KANNUR DTPC REPORT -2016 MADE BY 4TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE -A(a) - A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE SANCTION ESTIMATE NO.FRBL/DGM/TS/2015-16/06 DATED 23.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF FACT-RCF BUILDING PRODUCTS LTD.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.S TO JUDGE** **AL/-**