Kerala High Court
T.P.Senkumar vs State Of Kerala on 13 April, 2018
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6076 of 2017
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 1302/2017 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
----------------------
T.P.SENKUMAR,
AGED 60 YEARS, RETIRED POLICE CHIEF, S/O.PRABHAKARAN,
TC 38/976, ANAND LANE, VATTIYOORKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031,
(CRIME NO.1302/2017 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
2. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU GEORGE (KARUVATTA)
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOKUL BABU
R BY ADV. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR. GOVT.PLEADER
R BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6076 of 2017 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-------------------------
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO.1302/2017 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT
CONDUCTED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT ALONG
WITH THE CONNECTED REPORTS GIVEN TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE JFCM COURT, ERNAKULAM.
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
--------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. NO.6076 OF 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of April, 2018
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1302 of 2017 of Museum Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram City. He is the former State Police Chief of Kerala. When the new Government came to power after the general election held to the Legislative Assembly in the State of Kerala, the petitioner was thrown out of the post of State Police Chief. He availed himself of half pay leave. Later he filed an application to convert it into commuted leave. In support of his petition he filed medical certificates and other documents from Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram. One Sukkarno sent a complaint to the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau,Thiruvanthapuram alleging that the petitioner was not entitled to such a long leave as claimed by him and the salary received by him shall be ordered to be refunded to the Government. The complaint also mentioned that the complainant suspected that the documents produced by the petitioner were false documents. Ultimately, this complaint reached the Government. On behalf of the Government Crl.M.C. NO.6076 OF 2017 2 the Chief Secretary directed the police 'to take action' under the Criminal law, forthwith. The Museum police registered a case against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 167, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. This is sought to be quashed mainly on the ground that the allegations are false and the complaint was filed with ulterior motive at the instance of some senior police officers whose intention was to ensure that the petitioner was not appointed a member of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal to which he was selected by a committee headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Public Prosecutor.
4. Sri. Suman Chakravarthy relying on certain decisions of the Supreme Court submitted that if the First Information Statement disclose commission of at least one cognizable offence, the court cannot quash the FIR on the ground of lack of details in the statement. That is true. He also submitted that during the investigation certain illegalities have been disclosed. In this proceedings the court is only concerned with the legality of the registration of the case. Subsequent developments are not relevant.
5. On 27.6.2017 one Sukkarno sent Annexure-2 complaint to the Director of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Crl.M.C. NO.6076 OF 2017 3 Thiruvananthapuram. The relevant allegation in it is that the complainant suspected that the medical documents produced by the petitioner along with his application for commuted leave were false documents. A case can be registered under Section 157 Cr.P.C only when it discloses commission of a cognizable offence. A mere suspicion of a complaint that some offence has been committed is not sufficient to register a case. It is pertinent to note that the complainant does not disclose the grounds for his suspicion. He does not give any particulars to the allegation. He has raised an allegation which anybody can raise. The facts stated in his complaint are not sufficient to register a case. On this ground alone, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
6. It was to the Director of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram Sukkarno sent the complaint and not to the Station House Officer of the police station where the case was registered. Sukkarno never appeared before the Station House Officer. The Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau found that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not attracted. But it was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds to suspect commission of the offence of forgery and some offences related to it. Apparently, the Bureau sent the complaint to the Government. On 14.8.2017 the Chief Secretary sent a letter to the Director General of Police and State Police Chief Crl.M.C. NO.6076 OF 2017 4 requesting him 'to take action' under the Criminal law, forthwith. From the office of the State Police Chief a letter dated nil was sent to the Inspector General of Police (N/C), Thiruvananthapuram Range requesting him to take action under the Criminal law as directed by the Government. This letter reached the Station House Officer, Museum Police Station where the case was registered. The informant is shown as the Chief Secretary. The reason is obvious. The complaint was not addressed the Station House Officer. The person who prepared the complaint never appeared before the Station House Officer. He was not sure about the identity of the person who wrote the complaint. He had every reason to think that there was an order from the State Police Chief to register a case. It is true that the letter sent by the Chief Secretary to the State Police Chief there was no direction to register a case. But the latter was requested to 'report compliance'. The message was loud and clear. The direction was to register a case. Neither the Chief Secretary, nor any other officer of the State has the power to direct the police officer to register a case. That power has been conferred by the Cr.P.C only on the Magistrate. The direction issued by the Chief Secretary through the District Police Chief was illegal.
7. The petitioner has produced copy of the G-Diary maintained at the Museum Police Station. The officer who maintained G-Diary has Crl.M.C. NO.6076 OF 2017 5 recorded that Additional Inspector General-I Sri.Gopalakrishnan rang up the Station House Officer on the official phone and directed him to register a case. The Inspector General even informed the Station House Officer that it was behind back of the State Police Chief the instructions were being given. I have already mentioned that the letter which is purported to have been issued by the State Police Chief does not even reveal the date on which it was issued. The identity of the person who signed it on behalf of the State Police Chief also is not disclosed.
8. Sukkarno who sent the complaint to the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau sent a letter to the Station House Officer, Museum Police Station informing him about the forwarding of the complaint to the State Police Chief for registration of a case and requesting the Station House Officer to register a case. Sukkarno informed the SHO that it was improper on his part not to register a case. It is on 14.8.2017 the Chief Secretary wrote to the State Police Chief requesting him to register a case. It appears that before that letter reached the State Police Chief Sukkarno knew about the direction in the letter of the Chief Secretary. Even before the State Police Chief could take any action on the letter, Sukkarno wanted the Station House Officer to register a case. This speaks volumes.
9. Sukkarno filed a complaint before Enquiry Commissioner, Crl.M.C. NO.6076 OF 2017 6 Special Judge, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram raising the very same allegations. There were allegations that apart from the offences under the Indian Penal Code the petitioner had committed certain offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act also. This was challenged in O.P.No.535 of 2017. This court held that some forces had been at work against the petitioner since his becoming the State Police Chief and Sukkarno was only a tool in their hands. This court further observed that it was with ulterior motive he filed the complaint and his object was not to discover truth. The proceedings against the petitioner were quashed by the judgment passed on 1.12.2017. This was challenged before the Supreme Court by Sukkarno in SLP No.751 of 2018. The Apex Court dismissed the petition directing Sukkarno to deposit Rs.25,000/- within four weeks for the benefit of the Supreme Court Bar Association Lawyers Welfare Fund.
10. I have no doubt that the registration of the case was illegal. The Station House Officer was compelled to register a case by persons who had no authority to compel him. So the Station House Officer registered the case even though the letter which apparently was the basis for registration of the case did not disclose commission of any offence. This is a fit case to quash the proceedings in relation to the case registered against the petitioner.
Crl.M.C. NO.6076 OF 2017 7
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.1302 of 2017 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City are quashed.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm