V. Santharam S/o Late Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Leena P.K.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.8295 OF 2016** **CRIME NO.1980/2016 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **V.SANTHARAM S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, SARADA BHAVAN, KARIKKATH LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 LEENA P.K.** - **W/O. SREENIVASAN, EXTENSION OFFICER (P&M) MULLASSERY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, MULLASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. RESIDING AT VAILATHUR HOUSE, PERAKAM, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN- 680 506.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR** **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 2 # **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **===========================** ## **Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016** **===========================** Dated this the 21[st] day of December, 2020 ## **ORDER** The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows : _“.............. to quash Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1980/2016 of Pavaratty Police Station and its further proceedings against the petitioner, so as to secure the ends of justice.”_ 2. Heard Sri.C.A.Chacko, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.A.T.Anilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent and Sri.Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State. 3. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant impugned Annexure-A1 First Information Report in Crime No.1980/2005 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur, for offences punishable under Sec.294(b) & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the First Information Statement of the 2[nd] respondent-lady de facto complainant given on 30.10.2016 at 5.40 p.m., in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 20.10.2016. Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 3 4. The brief of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner/accused is working as the Block Development Officer of the block concerned, wherein the 2[nd] respondent-lady de facto complainant is working as his subordinate in the post of Extension Officer (Planning & Monitoring) and that on 20.10.2016, the petitioner had used filthy and abusive language to her and threatened that he will destroy her family and that this was done by the petitioner on account of the animosity towards her, as she was unwilling to correct the minutes of the meeting held on 28.07.2016 as directed by the petitioner, etc. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the abovesaid allegations have been made by the 2[nd] respondent are absolutely false and malicious and has been only to evade her responsibility, when the petitioner had issued memo and show cause notice against her. It is pointed out that an emergent meeting of the block panchayath was held on 28.07.2016 and the minutes of that meeting was prepared by the 2[nd] respondent. Further, the 2[nd] respondent had so prepared the minutes without the instruction and consent of the petitioner and that she had entered some portions in the minutes, which were not actually discussed in the meeting and on enquiry, she found that the same was incorporated, as directed by the President of the block panchayath. In Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 4 pursuance thereof, the petitioner had caused to issue Annexure-A2 show cause notice dated 19.08.2016 to the 2[nd] respondent directing her to offer her explanation, failing which appropriate action will be taken against her, etc. After receipt of Annexure-A2 notice dated 19.08.2016, the 2[nd] respondent has submitted Annexure-A3 explanation dated 20.08.2016. In Annexure-A3 the 2[nd] respondent would state that she has correctly and promptly written the minutes as per the directions of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the minutes was not prepared as per the instructions of the petitioner and the so called factual aspects recorded therein are factually wrong and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to send Annexure-A4 letter dated 20.10.2016 to the Assistant Development Commissioner (General), Thrissur recommending the disciplinary action against the 2[nd] respondent. 6. It appears that it is long thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent has given Annexure-A1 FIS before the police as late as on 30.10.2016 at about 5.45 p.m. making the abovesaid allegations in question. It can be seen that nowhere in Annexure-A3 explanation dated 20.08.2016 given by the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner during the working hours of that day, as she raised any such allegations as the one raised in Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 5 Annexure-A1 FIS given by her to the police on the same day (20.08.2016) in the evening (at 5.45 p.m.). Further it appears that the 2[nd] respondent has given Annexure-A5 complaint dated 21.10.2016 before the President of the Mullassery Block Panchayath. In pursuance of Annexure-A5, the Block Panchayath President, who is having animosity against the petitioner and that allegedly using his political influence, had sent complaint to the Rural Development Commissioner against the petitioner as per Annexure-A6 dated 25.10.2016, which led to the suspension of the petitioner from service, as per Annexure-A7 order dated 04.11.2016. Further that, the petitioner has submitted Annexure-A8 complaint dated 10.11.2016 before the Superintendent of Police concerned pointing out that the Block Panchayath President concerned and the 2[nd] respondent had committed forgery by incorporating subject in the minutes of the meeting concerned, which was not discussed in the meeting. It is further averred that pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner as per Annexure-A8 dated 10.11.2016 raising allegations of forgery, the matter was then being enquired into by the Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor, as per the directions issued by the Superintendent of Police (Rural). Further, the petitioner would point out that in the subsequent meeting of the block Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 6 panchayath held on 25.10.2016, the 2[nd] respondent has obliged and stated that she was having mental tension for making entries in the minutes without the consent of the petitioner, who is the Block Development Officer and that she has also admitted fault and pleaded for compromise, as can be seen from Annexure-A9 minutes of the meeting dawn up on 28.07.2016. However, it is pointed out by the petitioner on account of extraneous influence, presumably by the Block Panchayath President, who is having animosity against the petitioner and at whose instance the 2[nd] respondent had worked, the 2[nd] respondent has not signed in Annexure-A9 draft minutes. 7. After hearing both sides, there cannot be any disputes that the impugned incidents are happened in the context of disputes between the petitioner on the one hand, who is the superior and the 2[nd] respondent, who is the subordinate in respect of the manner and method of the preparation of the minutes of the meeting by the 2[nd] respondent. According to the petitioner, the minutes prepared by the 2[nd] respondent was faulty and at the instigation of the Block Panchayath President and that the factual averments made in the minutes is absolutely wrong and that it was so done by the 2[nd] respondent at the instigation of the Block Panchayath President for Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 7 his extraneous agendas. Whereas, the 2[nd] respondent would contend that the minutes has been rightly dawn up by her, etc. But the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has issued Annexure-A2 show cause notice dated 19.08.2016 in respect of the preparation of the minutes of the meeting held on 28.07.2016. Pursuant to Annexure-A2, the 2[nd] respondent has given Annexure-A3 explanation dated 20.08.2016, during the working hours of that day. Nowhere in Annexure-A3, has the 2[nd] respondent remotely got a case that any of the alleged incidents subsequently pointed out by her in the FIS given to the police, as occurred. The only case set up by the 2[nd] respondent in Annexure-A3 is that the minutes has been properly and correctly prepared by her and that too on the basis of the instructions and consent of the 2[nd] respondent. The records would also indisputably show that the petitioner has caused to issue Annexure-A4 report dated 20.10.2016 addressed to the next superior concerned (Assistant Development Commissioner (General), Thrissur) recommending that disciplinary action should necessarily be taken as against the 2[nd] respondent, as the petitioner was not satisfied the explanation of the 2[nd] respondent, as given in Annexure-A3 in reply to Annexure-A2. It is long thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent has given Annexure-A1 FIS as late as on 30.10.2016 Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 8 and that too at 5.45 p.m. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a strong probable case that the 2[nd] respondent would have submitted Annexure-A1 FIS to the police and that too belatedly only on 30.10.2016, mainly to get over the adverse action proposed by the petitioner against her, as per Annexure-A2 & Annexure-A4. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is an inordinate and unexpected delay on the part of the 2[nd] respondent in lodging the FIS and the FIR. The alleged incidents are said to have happened during the working hours of 20.10.2016 in the office of the petitioner, who is the Block Development Officer. Whereas, the FIS has been given as late as on 30.10.2016 and that too at 5.45 p.m. 8. The Apex Court and various High Courts have laid down the legal principles regarding the effect of long and unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. It is by now well settled by a series of decisions as in _**Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu**_ [AIR 1973 SC 501 = (1972) 3 SCC 393], _**State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Madhusudhan Rao**_ [(2008) 15 SCC 582], have held that the delay in lodging of FIR will more often than not, result in embellishments and exaggerations, which is a creation of afterthought and that the delayed report, not only gets bereft of the advantages of Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 9 spontaneity, but the danger of introduction of coloured versions and exaggerated account of incidents or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultation also creeps in, which cast a very serious doubt on the very veracity of the prosecution story. Hence, it has been held that it is highly essential that the delay in lodging of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety. 9. In the instant case, the delay of 10 days is quite fatal to this case. The inordinate and unexplained delay coupled with the crumbling down of the substratum of the case on account of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, will lead to the situation that the petitioner has made out a strong case that the impugned criminal proceedings are liable for interdiction at the hands of this Court in exercise of the inherent extraordinary powers of this Court saved and preserved in terms of Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. 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 Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 10 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 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. 11. The impugned Annexure-A1 FIR has been registered on 30.10.2016. The above Crl.M.C has been filed on 29.11.2016 and this Court had granted stay of the impugned proceedings. This Court is now apprised that thereafter, the case is still at the FIR stage. Going by the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the matter would require interdiction. Hence, Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 11 in that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1980/2016 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur as against the petitioner/accused and all consequential proceedings initiated thereby as against the petitioner/accused, will stand quashed and set aside. 12. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Chavakkad, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of. **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd Crl.M.C No.8295 of 2016 12 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 30.10.2016 ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO. 1980/2005 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19.8.2016 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 20/8/2016 GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20.10.2016 OF PETITIONER ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.10.2016. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 25.10.2016 GIVEN TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.11.2016 OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 10.11.2016 FILED BY PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF DRAFT MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 25.10.2016.**