Kerala High Court
Febin K.Xavier vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
MONDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/7TH MAGHA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1790 of 2011 ( )
----------------------------
CC.NO. 4682/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
-----------------------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :
------------------------------------------
FEBIN K.XAVIER,AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O.K.K.XAVIER, KOONAMPILAV HOUSE,
THRIKKOOR VILLAGE, THYKATTUSSERY KARA,
THALORE P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT :
----------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.T.SHEEBA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
CRMC.NO.1790/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET IN CC 4682/2010
ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS WITH REGARD TO VEHICLE
NO.KL 32-2618
ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BEARING
NO.KL-10-X-7136
ANNEX A4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
CHIEF MINISTER'S OFFICE AGAINST THE SAID P.P.N.UNNIRAJAN
ANNEX A5 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY ADD.CHIEF
SECRETARY,HOME DEPARTMENT
ANNEX A6 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.20183/2009 DATED
8/7/2010
ANNEX A7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION 13593/2011 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: '
ANNEX R1 COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT WITH ANNEXURE R1(A)
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
P.D.RAJAN, J
.........................................
Crl.M.C.No.1790 of 2011
.........................................
Dated 27th January, 2014
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.4682 of 2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda. Petitioner is the first accused in the above case which was charge-sheeted under Section 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The allegation of the prosecution was that accused were engaged in alteration of vehicles with the intention to make profit and according to their common intention, they purchased an Omni Van bearing registration No.KL -32-2618 and they removed the shell and fitted it with another body shell and welded the engine number of the damaged vehicle and shell. Similarly another Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No.KL-10 X 7136 involved in another accident also was purchased by them and the Crmc 1790/2011 2 above replacement was done in that vehicle also.
3. On the basis of the information, Puthukkadu police suo motu registered Crime No.855 of 2010 and after completing the investigation, Addl.S.I of Police, Puthukkad laid charge before the court. Hence first accused in the above case has approached this court with this petition.
4. Heard both sides. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that no offence has been committed by the petitioner since no illegal act has been committed by him replacing the damaged shell with a new one. Section 465 and 468 of IPC deals with forgery of documents, in which no documents are produced before this court to show that such an act was committed by the petitioner and others in the above crime. According to Section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act, Annexure A1 does not make out a criminal offence. Hence, he prays to quash Annexure Crmc 1790/2011 3 A1 proceedings.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the argument and contended that the case was registered on the basis of the information received from C.I of Police, Special Squad, Crime Branch, Puthukkad. Immediately, the concerned Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence and ascertained the truth of the allegations and proceeded further. The report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, as per the direction of this court makes a prima facie case. Moreover, A1 charge sheet shows a prima facie case against the accused in the above case. The detailed report submitted by the Scientific Assistant, Regional Forensic Laboratory, Thrissur also makes out a prima facie case. If Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked at this stage, it will prejudice the prosecution case and hence learned Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of this petition. Crmc 1790/2011 4
6. Now the question that arise for consideration is whether Annexure A1 is to be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 482 of Cr.P.C makes it clear that the provision of the code are not intended to limit or affect the inherent powers of the court. The power mentioned under Section 482 of Cr.P.C could be used for the three purposes specifically mentioned in the section. This cannot be naturally invoked in respect of any matter covered by the directions of this court. It is clear as per Annexure A6 and A7 that this court interfered at an earlier stage and directed the IG of Police, Thrissur to furnish a detailed report. The Investigating Officer in this case completed the investigation and submitted Ext.A1 report. The allegations made in the complaint were considered by the Investigating Officer and it shows a prima facie case against the accused in the above case. In Crmc 1790/2011 5 Annexure A7 the court observed that police had convinced that the petitioner is not involved in any crime earlier and they will not take any action against the petitioner at that time. But subsequently, they filed Ext.A1 final report. I.G of Police also submitted a report as per the direction of this court. As per the direction, an enquiry was conducted by I.G of Police and a report dated 7.9.2011 was submitted. In paragraph 3, it is mentioned that Jovins was conducting a workshop at Talore and the aforesaid vehicles were repaired in that workshop. Before completing the repair work, Puthukkad police took the vehicles in question and the chasis number was kept in the body of the vehicle.. In paragraph 7, Joint Transport Commissioner reported as follows.
" I took the statement of Shri Alex Paul, Joint Transport Commissioner over phone. He states that if anybody wants to alter his vehicle he must seek the permission of the R.T.O concerned to make any alteration in the vehicle, ie, a Crmc 1790/2011 6 person must obtain a Clearance Certificate from RTO prior to the alteration of vehicles. He further states that buying the shell of an old car from an authorised dealer and removing the original chassis number and welding chassis number (ie. the chassis number and engine number of another car for which an RC book is made or existing) is not the legal way of changing the chassis of a damaged vehicle. For changing the body of a damaged vehicle, the fact has to be informed to the authorised dealer and the dealer will inform this to the company and a new shell will be supplied by the company through the dealer. The chassis number of the new body also will be new and accordingly such entries have to be made in the RC book too. Any other type of change will amount to tampering with the document. It will not be in accordance with section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act and hence it can be considered as an act of forgery".
From the aforesaid report, it is clear that the petitioner and others repaired the vehicle at Jovins work shop and the chassis number was kept in the body of the vehicle without obtaining sanction from the authorities. The controversy is as to whether it Crmc 1790/2011 7 will amount to a forgery under Section 465 IPC or whether it will amount to violation of provisions of Section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence of the Investigating Officer and other expert opinion is necessary for reaching a conclusion. When prima facie case is made out against the accused, it is upto her to seek for setting aside the proceedings at this stage. Hence there is no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE lgk