T.K. Haridas v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.8305 OF 2018(G)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 885/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA** **CRIME NO.970/2017 OF Kuthuparamba Police Station , Kannur** ## **PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:** **T.K.HARIDAS AGED 51 YEARS S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT SREEHARI, POYANAD, MAMBRAM, KANNUR,PIN-670741, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(AUDIT), KOHIMA, NAGALAND.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SHEBA RIVY SIMON SMT.LINTA VARGHESE SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **2 ANITHA C.P, PRESIDENT, VENGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAITHERIPOYIL,PATHIRIYAD P.O, KANNUR-670741.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN** ## **SRI.B.JAYASURYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 2 ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------Criminal M.C. No. 8305 of 2018 -----------------------------------Dated this the 18[th ] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** The prayers in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Sec.482 of Cr.PC is as follows: _“.....to quash Anx.A1 FIR and A3 final report in C.C No.885/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Koothuparamba.”_ 2. Heard Sri.P.G.Jayasankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (sole accused), Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1 State of Kerala and Sri.M.Pramodh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.2 (lady defacto complainant). 3. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant impugned Anx.A1 FIR in crime No.970/2017 of Koothuparamba Police Station, Kannur District for offences punishable under Secs.354 D, 509 & 294 B of the IPC, on the basis of the first Information statement given by the 2[nd] respondent lady defacto complainant on 12-12-2017 at about 10.15 p.m, in respect of the alleged incident which happened on the previous day (11-12-2017) Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 3 at about 2.30 p.m in the afternoon. 4. The police after investigation has filed the impugned Anx.A3 Final report/charge sheet in the said crime No.970/2017 of Koothuparamba Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C No.885/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koothuparamba, Kannur District for the abovesaid offences, in which the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused therein. It is this proceedings at Anx.A3 Final report/charge sheet and the Calendar Case emanating therefrom that is under challenge in this petition filed under Sec.482 of Cr.PC. 5. The brief of the prosecution case is that on 11-12-2017 at about 2.30 p.m in the afternoon, the petitioner/accused had telephonically contacted the lady defacto complainant, who was then holding the post of president of the Vengad Grama Panchayat, in her official telephone and had used vulgar and foul words to her and had threatened her and that even on prior occasions petitioner/accused used to do so and that he had called her a buffalo and further said that he should embrace her and he should kiss her, etc. 6. According to the petitioner, he is a senior Internal Audit Officer in the service of the Union Governmental authorities, who was Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 4 then appointed and posted on deputation basis to a Medical Institution of National Eminence viz, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Thiruvananthapuram, which is regulated by an Act of the Parliament. On account of his senior position as an Internal Audit Officer working under the Union Government, he was then on deputation basis in the abovesaid institution and then consequently was nominated as a member of a High Power Committee of the said institution to examine the provisions of the proposed stores and purchase manuals of the said Sree Chitra Institute, vide Anx.A4 order dated 06-11-2017. That on the alleged date of occurrence, viz, 11-12-2017 the petitioner was in fact participating in the said High Power Committee meeting regarding stock and purchase manuals issued by the Government of India in the Union Ministry of Finance, as can be seen from Anx.A5 minutes of the said committee for the period from 20-11-2017 to 11-12-2017. A perusal of Anx.A5 minutes would show that on 11-12-2017 between 2.00 p.m and 3.00 p.m, the petitioner was engaged in the said High Power Committee meeting at Sree Chitra Institute, Thiruvananthapuram and has been deliberating in its discussions. Further that the abovesaid allegations raised against the petitioner are completely false and made due to malicious Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 5 consideration at the behest of the 2[nd] respondent lady defacto complainant, who was then the president of the local Grama Panchayat as the panchayath was taking a series of vindictive acts against the petitioner’s wife and the petitioner, in the running of internet cafe by the petitioner's wife. 7. It is further pointed out that some of the local leaders of the prominent political party in the panchayath locality had attempted to trespass into the property of the petitioner and his wife and therefore the petitioner was constrained to file Anx.A6 Original Suit O.S No.277/2016, before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba, Kannur District seeking injunction, in which the Vengad Grama panchayath of which the 2[nd] respondent lady defacto complainant is a president, has been arrayed as the defendant No.5 therein. That one of the reasons why the petitioner was constrained to initiate the said litigative proceedings before the Civil court against the Vengad Grama Panchayat, of which the 2[nd] respondent is the president was that the panchayath had not taken any action against the illegal activities of the defendants 1 to 3 therein. 8. Further that since the petitioner was then at Kohima, Nagaland, the said civil litigation and all matters connected therewith Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 6 were conducted by his wife as a power of attorney holder. The petitioner's wife has been operating an internet cafe as part of a selfemployment program and that in order to ensure that the petitioner and his wife are penalised for initiating Anx.A6 civil litigative proceedings against the respondent Panchayat of which the 2[nd] respondent is the president, Panchayat leaders had directed the petitioner's wife to demolish a part of their building. Aggrieved by the said direction issued by the said Panchayat the petitioner and his wife had preferred a statutory appeal as per Anx.A7 dated 21-08-2017 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Panchayt Raj Act. In Anx.A7 statutory appeal the petitioner had also sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.4.81 Lakhs for the loss incurred to them on account of the illegal actions on the part of the Panchayat of which the 2[nd] respondent is the president. Further that Anx.A7 statutory appeal was posted before the Tribunal on 11-12-2017 and there was an oral direction from the said Tribunal to the respondent therein, the panchayath, to examine the matter and to take corrective steps. The wife of the petitioner, who was then conducting Anx.A7 appeal before the Tribunal, had appeared as party in person and she Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 7 had telephonically informed the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant as a president about the said proceedings of the Tribunal. The petitioner’s wife was then using the mobile phone bearing No.87943 73916, which was formally subscribed by the petitioner and it was being used by the petitioner's wife. The petitioner’s wife had called from the said mobile phone to the official mobile number of the 2[nd] respondent -defacto complainant (94960 49135). That the 2[nd] respondent had then informed the petitioner's wife that she will revert back after speaking with their Lawyer. The 2[nd] respondent thereafter called the petitioner’s wife and informed her that the 2[nd] respondent would conduct personal hearing in the matter later. Thereafter the 2[nd] respondent -defacto complainant had disconnected the call. In order to ascertain the actual date of personal hearing, the petitioner’s wife had called back and the defacto complainant then informed the petitioner’s wife that the hearing will be conducted by the 2[nd] respondent as a president of panchayat on 22-12-2017. At that time the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant had explicitly expressed her displeasure in annoyance in continuing with the various litigative proceedings at the instance of the petitioner and his wife as in Anxs.A6 & A7 etc, and she had threatened the petitioner’s Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 8 wife that they will be put to difficulties if they proceed with the case. 9. Thereafter the 2[nd] respondent had issued Anx.A8 written notice dated 12-12-2017 that personal hearing in the matter considered by the Tribunal will be conducted on 22-12-2017, that it is only after the issuance of Anx.A8 notice dated 12-12-2017, which prepared at about 10.15 a.m from the Panchayat office. That the 2[nd] respondent has given Anx.A2 FIS dated 11-12-2017 on 12-12-2017 at about 10.15 p.m in the night, in respect of the alleged incident which was said to have happened on the previous day dated 11-12-2017 at about 2.30 p.m in the afternoon. 10. Further Anx.9 is the call data records in respect of the mobile phone referred to in Anx.A1 FIR and Anx.A2 FIS said to have been used at the relevant time. Serial No.45 of Anx.A9 call details will show the call details relating to 11-12-2017 and which would show an incoming call of the defacto complainant's phone from the petitioner's wife’s mobile number at about 14:01:05 hrs. Serial No.50 of Anx.A9 would show an outgoing call from the defacto complainant's phone to the petitioner’s wife’s phone number at about 14:34:27 hrs, which lasted for a minute. Thereafter the petitioner’s wife said to have called back the defacto complainant at 14:36:59 (Sl. Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 9 No.51). This would show that there have been some phone calls as between the two mobile numbers in question. It is thus contended that if any such unacceptable conduct has been shown by the petitioners then on 11-12-2017 at about 2.30 p.m in the afternoon, then there is no question of the 2[nd] respondent again calling back to the number in question, which is that of the petitioner, etc. 11. Further learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner has now filed Crl.M.A No.1/2020 in this Crl.M.C dated 09-11-2020 and the said Crl.M.A has been filed on 11-11-2020, which would show that the District Police Chief, Kannur has initiated Anx.A10 proceedings No.H2-52201/2019/C dated 26-08-2019, ordering that disciplinary action should be initiated against the Investigating Officers, who was conducted the investigation in Anxs.A1 to A3, inasmuch as they have conducted a faulty investigation without looking into crucial and relevant aspects like the aforesaid call data records as in Anx.A9 herein and that the Investigating Officers have not even cared to examine the vital discrepancies in the statements given by the various charge witnesses, which form part of the final report. 12. The petitioner's wife had issued series of E-mails as per Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 10 Anx.A11 on 17-07-2020 to the District Police Chief,, Kannur to inform her the details of the outcome of Anx.10 disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Investigating Officers concerned on 26-08-2019, but she has not been given any reply. 13. The matter was fully heard on previous occasion (06-11-2020) on which day, this Court had taken note of the abovesaid submission made by the counsel for the petitioner about the issuance of the said proceedings dated 26-08-2019 by the District Police Chief and about the alleged issuance of disciplinary action etc, and this Court had specifically directed the learned Prosecutor to get factual instructions from the District Police Chief, Kannur about the correctness or otherwise of the abovesaid submission made by the petitioner’s counsel. Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Public Prosecutor would now apprise this Court that immediately after the issuance of the said order dated 06-11-2020 in this Crl.M.C, he had sent an official communication to the District Police Chief on 11-11-2020, eliciting the abovesaid details as required in this Court’s order dated 06-11-2020 as to whether the disciplinary proceedings have been ordered to be taken against the Investigating Officers concerned as per proceedings dated 26-08-2019, etc, as stated by the petitioner. Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 11 The learned Prosecutor submits that even now he has not been given any factual instructions about the said aspects. 14. Sri.P.G.Jayasankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could now secure reliable information that after the issuance of this Court’s order dated 06-11-2020, the District Police Chief, Kannur has now issued proceedings dated 13-11-2020 dropping the disciplinary action earlier ordered in Anx.A10 dated 26-08-2019 and he would submit that disciplinary action has now been dropped only because this Court had called for factual instructions from the District Police Chief as the police officers would have found it very inconvenient to face the truth of the matter on the issues now posed before this Court. 15. All the parties concerned have been heard _in extenso_ . There is no dispute that the petitioner is a senior ranking Internal Auditor Officer in the service of the Union Governmental authorities and he was then appointed and posted on deputation basis to Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a Medical Institution of National Eminence. Annexure A4 is the proceedings of the said institution issued on 06-11-2017, whereby the petitioner has been made part of Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 12 the High Power Committee constituted by that institution, to examine the various provisions of the proposed stores and purchase manual. Annexure A5 is the said committee meeting proceedings for the period from 20-11-2017 to 11-12-2017 and the last item of Anx.A5 would show that the details on 11-12-2017 that the petitioner was in fact engaged in participation of the said High Power Committee meeting of the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute, Thiruvananthapuram between 2.00 p.m and 3.00 p.m. 16. Further a series of litigative proceedings are pending between the petitioner and his wife on the one hand the Vengad Grama Panchayat on the other hand of which the 2[nd] respondent is the president. Annexure A6 is the civil suit instituted by the petitioner on 20-04-2016, in which the Vengad Grama Panchayat of which the 2[nd] respondent is the president, has been made the 5[th] defendant therein and various allegations have been made in the said suit regarding the alleged illegal conduct of the Vengad Grama Panchayat of which the 2[nd] respondent is the president. Further the petitioner has got a specific case that, he was at Kohima, Nagaland, when Anx.A6 litigative proceedings were going one and hence he has appointed his wife as a power of attorney to conduct the said litigative Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 13 proceedings, coercive steps have been taken by the Vengad Grama Panchayat of which the 2[nd] respondent is the president as against the internet cafe run by the petitioner's wife and in that regard, the petitioner and his wife has been constrained to approach the statutory Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions which is headed by a District Judge, constituted as per the provision of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Anx.A7 statutory appeal has been filed on 21-08-2017. Annexure A8 issued by none other than the said Panchayat would show about the pendency of Anx.A7 appeal. Annexure A7 appeal was posted before the Tribunal on 11-12-2017. A series of phone calls had taken place as between the mobile number, which is subscribed by the petitioner and the official mobile cell of the 2[nd] respondent, who is the Panchayat president. 17. The petitioner has got a case that, the petitioner’s wife was all throughout using the said phone number subscribed by him at the relevant time. Annexure A9 is the calls made from the said mobile number mentioned in Anx.A1 FIR. Serial No.45 thereof would show incoming details on 11-12-2017, which would show that there was an incoming call to the defacto complainant's number from the petitioner's number at 14:01:05 hrs. Serial No.50 thereof would show Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 14 that an outgoing call from the defacto complainant’s phone number to the other number in question, which lasted for a minute. Thereafter a call has been made from the petitioner’s number to the defacto complainant’s number at 14:36:59 (Sl.No.51). 18. The petitioner has made out a strong probable case that, if as a matter of fact he had abused the 2[nd] respondent by using such foul language, then there is no reason why the 2[nd] respondent has called back to the petitioner’s number at 14:34:27 (Sl.No.50). The specific case of the petitioner is that, the phone in question has been used by her and she was communicating the case developments in the Tribunal to the defacto complainant, who is the president of Panchayat, who is made a defendant in the said appeal, in order to ensure the compliance of the directions of the Tribunal. Annexure A8 is a notice dated 12-12-2017 issued by the Vengad Grama Panchayat, informing that the hearing in question in the matter directed to be considered by the Tribunal will be held on 22-12-2017. It is after the issuance of Anx.A8 dated 12-12-2017, that the 2[nd] respondent has filed her Anx.2 FIS though dated 11-12-2017 but only on 12-12-2017 and that too at 22:15 hrs (10.15 p.m in the night). The incident is said to have happened at 2.30 p.m on 11-12-2017 for the first time the 2[nd] Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 15 respondent is making the allegation as per Anx.A2 FIS on 12-12-2017 at about 10.15 p.m in the night. It is beyond any dispute that the 2[nd] respondent was then the president of the Grama Panchayat. If as a matter of fact, the abovesaid incidents have happened on 11-12-2017 at 2.30 p.m, nothing prevented her from immediately after the said incident should have been easily conveyed through the peon of the Panchayat to the SHO of police station concerned. So also, there is no explanation as to why the FIS has not been lodged at least on the same day (11-12-2017) at least before 10.00 p.m. On the other hand, the indisputable fact of the matter is that, Anx.A2 FIS though bearing the date 11-12-2017, has been actually given by the 2[nd] respondent only on 12-12-2017 at about 10.15 p.m in the night. It is a matter of common knowledge that a person holding the post of president of the local Grama panchayat, has got sufficient resources and personnel to ensure that to give complaint of this nature to the SHO immediately after the incident, more so particularly, as the incidents are alleged to have taken place in the context of pending litigation between both sides and the call has been made to the official mobile of the 2[nd] respondent, which was allotted to her in her capacity of the president of the panchayat. The question of delay has to be evaluated based on Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 16 the facts of the case and that in the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated herein above this court has no hesitation to hold that the delay in lodging the FIR only as late as on 12-02-2017 and that too 10.15 p.m in the night in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on 11-11-2017 at about 2.30 p.m in the afternoon, appears to be rather significant and substantial and such delay has not been explained by the prosecution in any manner. 19. It is all the more so, since the Vengad Grama Panchayat of which the 2[nd] respondent is the president has issued Anx.A8 notice dated 12-12-2017 at about 10.15 a.m in the morning, in respect of a hearing that has been ordered to be conducted on 22-12-2017 pursuant to the matter considered by the Tribunal. The petitioner is a high ranking officer of the Internal Audit wing of the Union Government. The respondents do not have any case that the petitioner has indulged in such manner at any time before or after this incident or with anybody else. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner was then at Thiruvananthapuram as a member of a High Power Committee of Sree Chitra Institute of Medical Science and Technology, which is a Medical Institution of National Eminence. It only rhymes to reason and logic that the competent High Power Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 17 authority of the Union Government would have certainly vetted the antecedents of an officer like the petitioner before permitting his appointment on deputation basis from the service of the Union Government authorities to the service of the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Science and Technology. 20. There is no dispute that series of litigative proceedings were pending between the parties, as can be seen from Anx.A6 civil suit and Anx.A7 statutory appeal before the Tribunal. Annexure A9 series of telephone calls would also bear ample testimony to the fact that, the impugned criminal proceedings would have been issued out of ulterior considerations, more particularly, in the light of the fact that none other than the head of the police force of the District viz, the District Police Chief has issued Anx.A10 proceedings dated 26-08-2019, finding that the Investigating Officers have conducted grave irregularity and that there are serious faults in the investigation which has led to Anxs.A1 to A3 and that crucial divergences and contradictions in the statements of various charge witnesses has not been examined by the Investigating Officers in its proper perspective and further that crucial materials emanating from none other than Anx.A9 call records has been completely ignored and brushed aside Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 18 by the Investigating Officers and that therefore they are liable to face disciplinary action and it has been ordered by the District Police Chief that the Deputy Superintendent of the District Crime Branch has to conduct the necessary disciplinary proceedings in that regard in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules (1958). 21. The story does not appear to end there. The arguments in this case were concluded on 06-11-2020. But since the counsel for the petitioner had raised a new submission about the issuance of the abovesaid disciplinary proceedings dated 26-08-2019 as against the Investigating Officer concerned, this Court had directed the learned Public Prosecutor to get specific factual instructions in that regard from the District Police Chief, Kannur. The learned Prosecutor would say that he has at the official communication in that regard, eliciting for factual instructions from the District Police Chief by sending an official communication on 11-11-2020. The prosecution is now kept in the dark by the police authorities concerned about the information elicited by him on 11-11-2020, in compliance of the requirements in this Court’s order dated 06-11-2020 in this case. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 19 has secured now reliable information that the District Police Chief has now issued proceedings dated 13-11-2020, dropping the entire disciplinary proceedings ordered earlier in Anx.A10 dated 26-08-2019. Irrespective as to the correctness or otherwise of the dropping of the disciplinary proceedings, one thing that is indisputable as far as the respondents are concerned is that none other than the head of the District Police force viz, District Police chief concerned has taken a strong view as early as on 26-08-2019 as per Anx.A10 that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officers are faulty and suffer from serious illegalities inasmuch as divergence of the material contradictions of the statements of various charge witnesses had not been examined in its proper perspectives and that the highly relevant material as in Anx.A9 call data records issued by none other than Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, which is undertaking fully owned by Government of India, have been completely ignored and brushed aside by the Investigating Officers concerned. 23. Adjudged from the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case this court is of the considered view that, the petitioner Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 20 has indeed made out a strong probable case before this Court that the incidents in question would have happened not in the manner as alleged by the petitioner but in some other manner. The impugned criminal proceedings are thus tainted manifestly by extraneous and ulterior considerations. 24. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case _**Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & another**_ reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466 that where a complaint is found to be vexatious or frivolous or oppressive, the power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C could befittingly exercised to quash such impugned criminal proceedings. In the case _**State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh & others v. Ganesh Chandra Jew**_ reported in (2004) 8 SCC 40, the Apex Court has held that the impugned criminal proceedings can be quashed where the complaint involves malafides. In the case _**Lambodaran Nair v. State of Kerala**_ reported in 2003 (1) KLT SN 115 Case No.83 (SC) it has been held by the Apex Court that the power under Sec.482 Cr.PC can be exercised where criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malafides or to wreck personal vengeance. In the case _**Om**_ Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 21 _**Prakash v. State of Jharkhand**_ reported in (2012) 12 SCC 72, the Supreme Court has categorically held that if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuance of a prosecution will lead to abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice, the power under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised and the proceedings must be quashed. 25. In the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is constrained to take the view that the impugned criminal proceedings in this case could be considered for quashment by resort to the extra ordinary inherent powers of this Court saved as per Sec.482 of Cr.PC. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Anx.A3 Final report/charge sheet filed in Anx.A1 FIR in crime No.970/2017 Koothuparamba Police Station, Kannur District, which has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C No.885/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koothuparamba as against the petitioner/accused and further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioner/accused will stand quashed and set aside. 26. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 22 before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koothupramba, who has dealt with C.C No.885/2018, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Appeal will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** KAS Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 23 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION**| |---|---| ||**REPORT.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED**| ||**BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE**| ||**SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOOTHUPARAMBA.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN**| ||**CC.NO. 885/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE**| ||**JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,**| ||**KOOTHUPARAMBA.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. P AND**| ||**A.I/X/91/SCTIMST/2017 DATED 06.11.2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF**| ||**THE SUB COMMITTEE ON VARIOUS DATES FROM**| ||**20.11.2017 TO 11.12.2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO,**| ||**277/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S**| ||**COURT, KOOTHUPARAMBA.**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.763/2017**| ||**BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF**| ||**GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED**| ||**12.12.2017 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL**| ||**FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY THE DEFACTO**| ||**COMPLAINANT REGARDING THE PROPOSED**| ||**PERSONAL HEARING.**| |**ANNEXURE A9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.3.2018**| ||**ISSUED BY BSNL ALONG WITH THE CALL**| ||**DETAILS WITH THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT**| ||**ON VARIOUS DATES.**| Crl.M.C No. 8305 of 2018 24 |**ANNEXURE A10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING**| |---|---| ||**NO. H2-52201/2019/C DATED 26.08.2019 OF**| ||**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KANNUR.**| |**ANNEXURE A11**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED**| ||**17.07.2020 SENT BY THE DAUGHTER OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT POLICE**| ||**CHIEF, KANNUR.**| **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL**