Kerala High Court
Shakir Asharaf vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 1
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 10250 OF 2023
CRIME NO.1215/2023 OF Adimaly Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
JAMIL MOHAMMED
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
ERACHAMVEETTIL,
ORUMANAYOOR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680512
NOW RESIDING AT VILLA #P76,
CAMINO-3, DUABILAND,
DUBAI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SMT.ANIMMA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
IDUKKI, PIN - 686501
3 NISHAD MON
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KATTAPANA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685508
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ADIMALI POLICE STATION,
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 2
2024:KER:72371
ADIMALI, PIN - 685561
5 MR. ABBAS
ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ADIMALI POLICE STATION, ADIMALI,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561
6 SHEMI MUSTHFA
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O OF MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA KHANI RAWTHER,
SHEMI MANSIL,
VETTIMUKAL P.O, ETTUMANOOR, PIN - 686631
7 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
*8 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(CRIME BRANCH) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
*9 DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
(CRIME BRANCH) IDUKKI 685602
*10 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE-II,
CRIME BRANCH IDUKKI UNIT,
THODUPUZHA 685584
*(ADDL RESPONDENTS R8 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 10.06.2024 IN CRL.M.APPL. NO.2/2024)
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEES P.K.
ADV.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C. Nos.6037/2024, 6639/2024,
6695/2024 & WP(Crl.)No.619/2024, THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 3
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6037 OF 2024
CRIME NO.16/2024 OF CBCID, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 AND 8:
1 SHAKIR ASHARAF
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. ASHARAF,
RAHANA MANZIL, 4/91,
MEPPARAMBA P.O., PALAKKAD PIN - 678001
NOW RESIDING AT
SILVER BUILDING APARTMENT 1402,
ABU SHAGHARA, UAE
2 AMEELA BABU
AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. SHAKIR ASHARAF,
RAHANA MANZIL, 4/91,
MEPPARAMBA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
NOW RESIDING AT
SILVER BUILDING APARTMENT 1402,
ABU SHAGHARA, UAE
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SRI.BHARATH MOHAN
SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 4
2024:KER:72371
CRIME BRANCH, THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685581
3 SHEMI MUSTHAFA
SHEMI MANZIL,
VETTIMUKAL P.O., ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEES P.K.
ADV.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.ADITHYA VARMA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 5
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6639 OF 2024
CRIME NO.277/2024 OF Manarcaud Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.V.SURESH
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VASAVAN,
VAVATHIL HOUSE,
MANARKAD,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686019
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SMT.ANIMMA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANARKAD POLICE STATION,
MANARKAD, PIN - 686019
3 MR. MURALI
THE THEN DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MANARKAD, KOTTAYAM,
NOW WORKING AS DYSP
CYBER CELL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 6
2024:KER:72371
4 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
KOTTAYAM SUB DIVISION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 7
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6695 OF 2024
CRIME NO.460/2024 OF Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 JAMIL MOHAMMED
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
ERACHAMVEETTIL,
ORUMANAYOOR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680512
NOW RESIDING AT VILLA #P76, CAMINO-3,
DUABILAND, DUBAI.
2 SHANAVAS
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDULKHADAR,
KOCHIDAPALLIKALAYIL,
ETTUMANOOR P.O.
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
3 K.V.SURESH
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VASAVAN,
VAVATHIL HOUSE,
MANNARKKAD,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686019
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SMT.ANIMMA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 8
2024:KER:72371
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION,
ETTUMANOOR, PIN - 686631
3 MR. MURALI
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM,
NOW WORKING AS DYSP, CYBER CELL,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
4 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
KOTTAYAM SUB DIVISION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
5 SHEMI MUSTHFA
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O OF MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA KHANI RAWTHER,
SHEMI MANSIL, VETTIMUKAL P.O,
ETTUMANOOR, PIN - 686631
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEES P.K.
ADV.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.ADITHYA VARMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 9
2024:KER:72371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 619 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 JAMIL MOHAMMED
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
ERACHAMVEETTIL,
ORUMANAYOOR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680512
NOW RESIDING AT VILLA #P76,
CAMINO-3, DUABILAND, DUBAI.
2 SHANAVAS
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDULKHADAR,
KOCHIDAPALLIKALAYIL,
ETTUMANOOR P.O.
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
3 K.V.SURESH
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VASAVAN,
VAVATHIL HOUSE,
MANNARKKAD,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686019
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SMT.ANIMMA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 MR. KARTHIK IPS
AGED 44 YEARS
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 10
2024:KER:72371
(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS),
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
3 MR.MURALI
AGED 55 YEARS
(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS),
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION,
ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
5 SHEMI MUSTHFA
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O OF MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA KHANI RAWTHER,
SHEMI MANSIL,
VETTIMUKAL P.O, ETTUMANOOR, PIN - 686631
6 THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
REPRESENTED BY FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE,
NEDUMBASSERY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683111
7 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMEES P.K.
ADV.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC
SRI.ADITHYA VARMA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.09.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 11
2024:KER:72371
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. Nos.10250/2023, 6037/2024, 6639/2024,
6695/2024 & W.P.(Crl.) No.619/2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2024
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in three different crimes registered at different police stations. Primarily they seek to quash the crimes registered against them. Petitioner in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and those in Crl.M.C No.6037/2024 seeks to quash FIR No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station, while the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.6695/2024 seek to quash FIR No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.6639/2024 prays for quashing the FIR in Crime No.277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station. In W.P(C) No.619/2024 petitioners pray for constituting a special team to investigate into FIR No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station. Since defacto complainant in the first two crimes is the same person and some of the accused are also common cases arising out of those crimes are to be disposed of together. The third crime was allegedly detected during the search in one of the other two crimes and hence the said case is also to be disposed of together.
2. The details, including the pleadings of each case, are given below separately, to appreciate the controversy:
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 12
2024:KER:72371 Pleadings in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and Crl.M.C No.6037/2024 (FIR No.1215/2023).
3. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 is the first accused, while the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.6037/2024 are arrayed as accused 2 and 8 in FIR No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station, which has now been renumbered as FIR No.16/2024 of Crime Branch, Idukki. Petitioners primarily seek to quash the crime registered against them. Other consequential reliefs of restraining coercive action against the accused have also been sought.
4. According to the allegations in the said FIR, while the defacto complainant was coming downhill in his Land Rover Defender Car bearing registration No.TO-623-KL-9627 from Mankulam to Ettumanoor in the evening on 16.09.2023, a Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.KL-53-G-2480 travelling in the same direction, attempted to collide with the Defender vehicle with intent to topple it. The defacto complainant alleged that if his driver had not swerved the vehicle, the vehicles would have collided with each other and his car would have toppled down into the valley, injuring him fatally and thereby the accused allegedly committed the offences under section 120(b) read with section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The crime was registered only on 30.09.2023, after 14 days of the incident and subsequently, the investigation was handed over to the District Crime Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 13 2024:KER:72371 Branch, who thereafter added additional offences under sections 120B of S. 302 and S. 307 IPC as well.
5. Petitioner alleges that at the time of the alleged incident, he was abroad and that he had no knowledge at all of such an incident. According to him, a small road traffic accident between two vehicles is being attempted to be converted into a serious offence with ulterior purposes and a fake case is being concocted to trap him using the influence of the defacto complainant who was his erstwhile partner. It was alleged that despite this Court's direction to issue a notice under section 41A Cr.P.C, the police published a lookout notice in the newspapers and that too, in a crime based on assumptions.
6. A Statement dated 21-06-2024 has been filed by the Dy.S.P Crime Branch, Idukki, in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 stating that the investigation conducted so far revealed that the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to kill the complainant at various places and a report altering the offences was filed on 16-03-2024 incorporating sections 120B of 302, 307, 201 and section 34 IPC, in place of 120B, 308 and 201 IPC. The statement also alleges that the first accused was absconding and therefore lookout circulars were issued against him. In the meantime, the first accused came down to Kerala on 02-06-2024 and in view of the order of the Supreme Court, he was not arrested. The investigating officer further states that quotation teams are involved in Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 14 2024:KER:72371 the case and also that the accused had secretly followed the complainant to various places and the second accused had even purchased an air pistol and stayed at various hotels under fake names for committing the crime. The investigating officer has also alleged that the first accused was the master brain behind the crime and that even the arrested accused has not co-operated with the investigation. According to the investigating officer, the accused had installed an application in the phones called 'Comera App' and the arrangements were being monitored through the said application.
7. In the objection filed by the defacto complainant in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023, he has stated inter alia that he had four business partnerships with the first accused and since disputes arose between them, a settlement was arrived at as per Annexure R6(C). As per the terms of the settlement, the defacto complainant had issued 14 post- dated cheques, of which 12 had already been honoured and therefore the motive alleged by the first accused is without any basis. It is further alleged that petitions have been filed before this Court to defeat the process of law and to tarnish the credibility of the investigation team. Pleadings in W.P.(Crl.) No. 619/2024 & Crl.M.C No.6695/2024, (FIR No.460/2024).
8. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in FIR No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station. The defacto complainant alleges that pursuant to a conspiracy, the third accused had on 13.02.2024, with Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 15 2024:KER:72371 intent to compel the withdrawal of Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimali Police Station and Crime No.158/2024 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, sent a WhatsApp voice message to the defacto complainant's friend by name Geo Jacob, threatening the defacto complainant and his family members including threats to destroy his establishments, and thereby the accused committed the offences under section 120B read with section 506 of IPC.
9. In the writ petition, petitioners seek the constitution of a special investigation team to investigate into the said crime while in Crl.M.C No.6695/2024, they seek to quash the FIR and also the proceedings initiated under section 130 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile section 107 Cr.P.C). According to the petitioners, the entire crime is the result of a malafide attempt of the police along with the defacto complainant to somehow or the other arrest the petitioners. It is alleged that when the Supreme Court had protected the first petitioner from being arrested, the police issued a lookout circular in this crime which involves only a bailable offence and took him into custody from the airport and later arrested him. Petitioners contend that even the alleged voice message is not available and no threat of any nature is revealed. Further, the complaints given in writing to authorities is alleged to be threats intended to destroy establishments of the defacto complainant.
10. In the statement filed by the investigating officer dated Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 16 2024:KER:72371 20-06-2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No.619 of 2024, it is averred that on 13-02-2024, the third accused had, pursuant to a conspiracy with accused 1 and 2, telephoned the defacto complainant's friend to frighten him and to snatch money and also to destroy the business owned by the defacto complainant. The crime was registered by the Ettumanoor Police, pursuant to a petition submitted to the State Police Chief by the defacto complainant on 26-02-2024. As part of the Investigation, a search was conducted at the residence of the third accused on 03-04-2024 and they found several bottles of foreign liquor and Indian made foreign liquor and hence FIR No.277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station was registered alleging offences under the Abkari Act, 1077. The investigating officer further states that pursuant to the Lookout Circular issued in Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station, it was informed from the Nedumbassery Airport on 02-06-2024 at 8:30 PM that the first accused had landed at Cochin Airport. Thereafter the police party reached the Airport at 02.00 am on 03-06-2024 and since he did not co-operate with the investigation, his mobile phones which were handed over to one Sri. Sudeesh was seized and arrested the first accused at 01.48 pm on 03-06-2024. It was further stated that since the order of the Supreme Court referred only to Crime No.1215/2023, the first accused was arrested and interrogated in Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station. The investigating officer further alleges that the third accused Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 17 2024:KER:72371 (petitioner No.3) is involved in 20 criminal cases under different police stations and is a person who is included in the KAAPA list of rowdies.
11. The petitioner has filed a reply statement in W.P.(Crl.) No.619/2024, stating that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motives and the crime was registered on 15-03-2024 alleging that the voice message was sent on 13-02-2024 by the third accused, the friend of the defacto complainant. Though the liquor seized from the house of the third accused is not illicit liquor and only the offence under section 13 of the Abkari Act would apply at the most, for possessing excess quantity of liquor, a false case has been registered incorporating serious offences. It is also stated that the police had clearly avoided stating the time of release of the first accused from the Ettumanoor Police Station after registering his arrest at 1:48 PM and also asserted that the first petitioner was released only at 8:30 PM, which can be identified from the CCTV footage directed to be retained by this Court.
12. A statement has been filed on behalf of the sixth respondent Bureau of Immigration on 18-07-2024, pursuant to the direction of this Court on 11-06-2024. In the said statement it is mentioned that the first accused was handed over to Nedumbassery police pursuant to the LOC issued by the District Police Chief, Kottayam. It is further stated that the LOC deletion request was sent by the District Police Chief, Idukki, on 12-06-2024 and the District Police Chief, Kottayam on 17-06-2024 and Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 18 2024:KER:72371 both LOC's were deleted on the subsequent day. The copies of the LOC deletion requests were produced in a sealed cover as they are allegedly secretive in nature while the LOC generation requests were not able to be produced since they had already been deleted.
13. Though an affidavit of the District Police Chief, Kottayam was directed to be filed, it was filed by the Officer now in office and not by the person who directed the issuance of the Lookout Circular. The affidavit states that though the investigating officer made efforts to trace the whereabouts of the first accused it was learnt that he was staying abroad and therefore a proforma for issuing a lookout circular was submitted on the strength of the base report received from the then investigating officer.
Pleadings in Crl.M.C No.6639/2024 (FIR No. 277/2024).
14. Petitioner in Crl.M.C No. 6639/2024 is the sole accused in Crime No.277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station. He is the third accused in FIR No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station. The FIR alleges that while the investigating officer searched the house of the third accused in connection with FIR No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station, it was revealed that the said accused had, without any authorisation, stored in his house 7 litres of foreign liquor and 10 bottles of 750 ml of Indian made foreign liquor to be used only by the soldiers and 25 sample bottles of liquor to be used and sold only at Pondicherry and thereby Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 19 2024:KER:72371 committed the offences under sections 55(a), 58, 13 and section 63 of the Abkari Act, 1077. Petitioner seeks to quash the said FIR and also seeks to quash the proceedings initiated under section 130 of the BNSS, 2023.
15. According to the petitioner, the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR would not make out any of the offences alleged and that the crime has been registered due to malafides. Petitioner points out that in the remand report, it was stated that he is involved in 19 crimes which was false as all those crimes had either been quashed, or referred as false or acquitted by the court much earlier than the registration of the present crime. Petitioner alleges that the attempts of the police are malicious, with ulterior motives and they intend to arrest the first accused to compel him to agree to the illegal demands of the defacto complainant. Petitioner has also raised fingers at the unholy nexus between the investigating officers and the defacto complainant.
16. I have heard Sri. Joy George, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. Narayanan, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. Rameez P.K., learned Counsel for the defacto complainant.
17. It is evident from the circumstances that the defacto complainant in Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station is the same as in Crime 460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station and both those Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 20 2024:KER:72371 crimes have some interconnection. The first accused in both the above crimes are the same while the third accused in Crime No.460/2024 is the sole accused in Crime No. 277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station. The petitioners have alleged that all these crimes have been registered as an abuse of the process of law with malafide and ulterior intentions. Petitioners also allege that the defacto complainant is a highly influential person with the police force and the crimes have been registered to ensure that the petitioners yield to his illegal demands.
18. During the course of hearing, since this Court felt doubts regarding the bonafides of the investigation conducted, the case diaries of the three crimes were called for and were meticulously perused.
Analysis of Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station. (subject matter of Crl.M.C No. 10250/2023 & Cr.M.C No. 6037/2024)
19. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention certain circumstances that are undisputed. Sri. Jameel Muhammed - the first accused in Crime No.1215/2023 and Crime No.460/2024 was the business partner of Sri. Shemi Mustafa - the defacto complainant in both those crimes. They had establishments at United Arab Emirates and a hotel project at Mankulam near Munnar. The wife of Sri.Shemi Mustafa and Sri. Jameel Muhammed had jointly purchased a landed property at Kottayam. Due to differences of opinion, the partnership business was wound up and a settlement was entered into at Dubai with approval from Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 21 2024:KER:72371 the Dubai Courts. 14 post-dated cheques were issued by the defacto complainant in favour of Sri. Jameel Muhammed, as part of the settlement arrangement and they were being encashed without any default.
20. Be that as it may, Sri. Jameel Muhammed - the petitioner in Crl.M.C 10250/2023 alleges that the road accident on 16-09-2023 is a staged drama created by the defacto complainant with the connivance of various police officers to trap him with an ulterior motive. According to him, the hollowness of the crime registered and the nature of offences alleged based on assumptions and surmises are not only curious but also mysterious and reflects the malafides and the clout of influence wielded by the defacto complainant. Petitioner contended that he had no role in the incident and that he is being trapped in the crime using a few planted persons.
21. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that, initially, Sri.Jameel Muhammed had approached this Court in Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 challenging the registration of FIR No.1215/2023. However, by order dated 31.10.2023, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said case by directing the District Police Chief, Idukki to consider the said petitioner's representation and to pass appropriate orders and inform the decision to him. It was further directed that, if the presence of the petitioner was necessary, the Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 22 2024:KER:72371 Investigating Officer should issue notice under section 41A Cr.P.C.
22. Surprisingly, without complying with the directions issued under Annexure A4, a lookout advertisement was published in a leading newspaper daily on 14.11.2023, alleging that Sri. Jameel Muhammed was absconding. Notice under section 41A Cr.P.C had never been issued to him as directed in Annexure A4 order of this Court. It is curious to note that the said Sri. Jameel Muhammed was, even according to the defacto complainant, having business interest in UAE all along and is stated to be absconding in the advertisement. Though the official respondents tried to justify their action by submitting that Annexure A4 order of this Court was not known to the police while publishing the advertisement, the said contention can only be looked upon with a pinch of salt. Annexure A6 is a document dated 17-11-2023 issued to the petitioner referring to Annexure A4 order wherein a reference is also made to an office letter dated 15-11-2023. Even otherwise, the learned Public Prosecutor had appeared on behalf of the respondents in Annexure A4 and even if the petition was disposed off at the admission stage, still, information would have immediately been conveyed to the police station concerned. Even otherwise, the principle of deemed notice is also attracted. Thus the conduct of the respondents raises suspicion.
23. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that, while perusing the case diary in Crime No.1215/2023, this Court noticed that several Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 23 2024:KER:72371 pages had been removed from the first volume. For example, page 90 is written in pencil over page 103, page 221 over 303, page 229 over 319, page 571 over 605 and many other pages likewise. Though this Court had directed on 31-10-2023 in Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 to issue notice under section 41A Cr.P.C to the petitioner, a request for issuing a Blue Corner Notice is seen from the case diary to have been generated on 25-11-2023. Curiously that letter is not seen in the case diary. The copy of the memorandum of Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 filed by the petitioner earlier, is also not seen. Certain new additions and incorporation of fresh pages are also noted, wherein justification is seen made for not complying with the directions in the order dated 31-10- 2023.
24. In the meantime, Sri. Jameel Muhammed filed Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and though initially he was granted an order on 29.11.2023 protecting him from coercive steps, later the interim order was varied on 12.12.2023 after observing that the said interim order need not be continued. Challenging the order vacating the interim direction, petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court as SLP No.594/2024. On 17.05.2024, the said Special Leave Petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court granting interim protection to the petitioner till 10.06.2024 observing that the petitioner would be at liberty to pray for further protection from the High Court, if Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 24 2024:KER:72371 the case is not disposed of on that day. When Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 came up on 10.06.2024, on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the order of protection granted by the Supreme Court, petitioner was arrested from the Airport when he landed on 02.06.2024, this Court felt that there was something more to what meets the eye, and hence the interim protection was extended.
25. Subsequently, the respondents clarified that the petitioner was taken into custody from the Nedumbassery Airport on 02.06.2024 not on the basis of Crime No.1215/2023, but on the basis of Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station registered on 15-03-2024 and that he was kept in custody almost for a day before being released on bail. It is now revealed, quite startlingly too, that in the said crime which alleges only bailable offences another lookout circular was issued by the District Police Chief, Kottayam on 22.06.2024, five days after the Supreme Court granted interim protection to the petitioner. On the basis of the said LOC, the Immigration Officers detained the petitioner on 02-06-2024 and handed him to the Ettumanoor Police. The said conduct of the respondents raises suspicion.
26. Later, this Court had on 11-06-2024, directed the Bureau of Immigration represented by the Foreigners Registration Officer, to produce the request for LOC issued by the District Police Chief, Kottayam. Time was repeatedly sought by the said respondent and Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 25 2024:KER:72371 finally, after the petitioner filed a contempt petition, a statement was filed mentioning that the request for LOC and other details had been deleted from the system pursuant to the request of the District Police Chief, Kottayam on 18-06-2024. The said request is undoubtedly after this Court issued a direction on 11-06-2024. These circumstances also raise suspicion.
27. It is also seen from the documents produced in the sealed cover by the sixth respondent that the LOC issued by the District Police Chief, Idukki was requested to be withdrawn only on 17-06-2024, that too, by stating that since the CBCID, Thodupuzha had already requested for another LOC to be issued, the earlier LOC requested by him ought to be withdrawn. There is no reference in the withdrawal request, to the Order of the Supreme Court in the SLP and further that the CBCID had taken over the investigation as early as in March 2024. These circumstances prick the judicial conscience and create doubts regarding the bonafides of the investigation.
28. Be that as it may, the allegations in the two crimes - FIR No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station, which is now renumbered as FIR No.16/2024 of Crime Branch, Idukki and FIR No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station, reveals curious incidents. In the former crime, registered 14 days after the occurrence, the allegations are based on several imponderables - If the vehicles had collided and if the vehicle Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 26 2024:KER:72371 in which the defacto complainant was travelling had fallen down the ravine and if the passengers inside the car had sustained injuries, and if they were fatal, they would have succumbed to those injuries. On the above allegations, Sri. Jameel Muhammed and two others were initially charged with section 308 IPC and thereafter with sections 120B of 302 and 307 IPC.
29. The scene mahazar prepared reveals that the incident in Crime No.1215/2023 occurred on the tarred road, that too at a point where there was a granite stone culvert, situated at a distance of 04.20 meters from the place of incident. The scene plan as noted from the case diary tallies with the above. Further, the case diary reveals that there was no damage at all to any of the vehicles involved in the alleged accident. A photograph in the case diary reveals only a minor scratch to the vehicle of the defacto complainant, that too, on the bumper and without even any dent. Coupled with the above, is the lookout advertisement published in the newspaper and the request for issuing a lookout circular in Crime No.1215/2023 addressed to the Immigration Authorities, that too, despite this Court's direction to issue a notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. The lookout circular issued in a bailable offence registered at Ettumanoor, after petitioner was protected from arrest in Crime No.1215/2023 and thereafter taking him into custody on 02-06-2024 also reflects the highhanded action of the police. This Court Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 27 2024:KER:72371 is prima facie satisfied that the entire records reveal a concerted attempt on the part of the police to implicate the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 in a crime and malafides loom large in registering the crime and making such wild and sweeping allegations. In this context, this Court bears in mind the repeated allegations and complaints filed by the said petitioner that some of the witnesses and accused have been planted in the instant crime to rope in the petitioner as an accused.
30. Though some statements of witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Officer alleging a conspiracy to commit murder, there is nothing on record to indicate any overt act committed by any of the accused, except for the alleged scraping of two vehicles on 16.09.2023, which did not even cause any damage or even a dent on the vehicle. The attempt on the part of the Investigation Officers to convert what would have otherwise been an ordinary road traffic accident involving offence under section 279 IPC has been, by a deft use of words, converted into a case of conspiracy to commit murder and a conspiracy to commit culpable homicide.
31. This Court is further satisfied that the issuance of a lookout circular in Crime No.460/2024 was only to overcome the direction of the Supreme Court granting interim protection to the petitioner from arrest. The guidelines prescribed for issuing a lookout circular have been delineated in the Office Memorandum of the Home Ministry dated Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 28 2024:KER:72371 22-02-2021, which was produced in a sealed cover. A reading of the said circular reveals that the conditions required for issuing a lookout circular in Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station were not in existence to enable the Investigating Officer, to request for issuing a lookout circular. Similarly, despite this Court's direction on 31-10-2023 in Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 to issue notice to the petitioner under section 41A Cr.P.C, the Investigating Officer as well as the District Police Chief, Idukki, exceeded their authority in requesting for a lookout circular on 25-11-2023.
32. Even otherwise, malafides are further evident from the circumstances that after petitioner arrived at the Nedumbassery International Airport, Kochi on 02.06.2024, he was taken into custody at 2.00 am on 03-06-2024 and taken 60 Kms away to Ettumanoor and recorded the arrest at 01.34 pm on that day itself. Since this Court had already directed to secure the CCTV footage, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to make available the said CCTV footage which reveals that the petitioner was released from police custody only at 07.58 pm, which is evident from the timing in the CCTV footage.
33. Though normally this Court would restrain itself from perusing the case diary at the stage of an investigation, such a course was necessitated in the instant case, since the judicial conscience of this Court was seriously pricked at the manner in which the circumstances Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 29 2024:KER:72371 have unfolded. Some of the circumstances are mentioned since this Court doubts the credibility of the investigation conducted so far into Crime No.1215/2023.
34. In this context, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the present petition to quash the FIR is not maintainable in view of the earlier Crl.M.C No. 8972/2023, which resulted in Annexure A4 order, is, according to me, legally not tenable. In the decisions in Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2019) 17 SCC 294 and in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2023 INSC 955], it was held that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under section 482 Cr.P.C will not lie in any situation, as it depends on the circumstances of each case. A subsequent application is maintainable in changed circumstances. In the instant case, as mentioned in detail earlier, despite the direction in Crl.M.C No.8972/2023 to issue a notice under section 41A Cr.P.C, when the police went ahead to issue lookout advertisement and a circular, certainly the circumstances had changed enabling the petitioner to approach this Court again. The contention regarding maintainability is rejected.
35. Be that as it may, though doubts have arisen about the manner of investigation and even the alleged crime itself, doubts by themselves cannot be a reason to quash a criminal proceeding at the Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 30 2024:KER:72371 threshold. Of course, when criminal proceedings are initiated for malafide purposes, the Court is empowered to quash even the FIR as held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335). However, at this stage, it cannot be held that the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR do not make out any of the offences alleged despite the doubts on its veracity. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is too premature a stage to arrive at a conclusion that the entire proceedings in Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station are liable to be quashed. Bearing in mind the limitations for quashing an FIR at the threshold, this Court declines to quash the FIR in Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station.
36. Nonetheless, as observed earlier, the manner in which the investigation has been conducted so far into Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station, pricks the judicial conscience of this Court. The materials do reflect, at least prima facie, that an insignificant or minor road traffic accident which did not cause any damage to any of the vehicles or injury to any person, is being catapulted into a major crime, for some unknown reason. The investigation conducted by the local police and even by the Crime Branch, Idukki do not inspire the confidence of this Court and is seemingly tainted and unfair. The investigation conducted so far cannot be said to be unbiased as well. Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 31
2024:KER:72371 The fundamental right of the petitioners to have a fair investigation has thus been severely affected.
37. In the decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another [(2019) 17 SCC 1] it has been observed that "What ultimately is the aim or significance of the expression "fair and proper investigation" in criminal jurisprudence? It has a twin purpose: Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law; secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the Court of competent jurisdiction. ....... Bringing out the truth by fair and investigative means in accordance with law would essentially repel the very basis of an unfair, tainted investigation or cases of false implication."
38. In the decision in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 762] it has been observed that a suspect or an accused has a right to have a just and fair investigation apart from trial. This principle has been stated to flow from the constitutional mandate contained in Art.21 and Art.22 of the Constitution of India. The Court went on to observe that where the investigation is ex facie unfair, tainted, malafide and smacks of foul play, the Courts would set aside such an investigation and direct fresh or de novo investigation and, if necessary, even by another independent investigating agency. After noticing that this is a power of wide plenitude and, therefore, has to be exercised sparingly, the principle of rarest of rare cases was made Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 32 2024:KER:72371 applicable. Unless the unfairness of the investigation is such that it pricks the judicial conscience, the Court should be reluctant to interfere in such matters to the extent of quashing an investigation and directing a 'fresh investigation'.
39. In Vinay Tyagi's case, (supra) the Supreme Court had referred to the decision in Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1] wherein it was observed that it is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency, but also that of the Courts to ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. An equally enforceable canon of criminal law is that high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in a tainted or unfair manner. The investigation should not prima facie be indicative of a biased mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law as nobody stands above law dehors his position and influence in the society."
40. On a consideration of the circumstances mentioned earlier, this Court is satisfied that the investigation conducted into Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station and later by the Crime Branch in FIR No.16/2024 of Crime Branch, Idukki, are liable to be set aside and a fresh investigation be ordered. In view of the doubts expressed by this Court regarding the credibility of the investigation done so far, it is Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 33 2024:KER:72371 necessary that a team comprising police officers of utmost and impeccable integrity be appointed as a Special Investigation Team. Having regard to the possibility of a malafide action, interests of justice demand that this Court protect the petitioners from any illegal arrest and if in case the new investigating team requires the presence of the petitioners, notices under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 shall be issued.
Analysis of Crime No. 460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station (subject matter of (W.P.(Crl.) No. 619/2024) and Crl.M.C No. 6695/2024)
41. As far as Crime No.460/2024 is concerned, on a reading of the FIR, it is evident that the ingredients of the offence under section 506 or under section 120(b) are not made out. An offence under S.503 require the following ingredients to be satisfied:
"(1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat."
42. The third accused is alleged to have conveyed a threat on 13-02-2024 by sending a voice message to Sri. Geo Jacob on the mobile phone. There is nothing to indicate that there was any conspiracy or any Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 34 2024:KER:72371 threat to commit the offence alleged, that too, of the nature contemplated under sections 503 IPC. Merely because some complaints were sent to officials by the accused regarding alleged encroachments into forest properties by the defacto complainant while constructing a resort, the said complaints cannot be treated as an attempt to destroy the business establishment of the defacto complainant. Moreover, threats of destruction of the business of a person when conveyed to a third party will not attract the offence of criminal intimidation. Section 503 IPC draws a distinction between threats hurled directly and threats hurled through another person. When threats of injury to the property are hurled at a third party, the offence of criminal intimidation will not be attracted. Thus, the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR do not make out any of the ingredients of the offence alleged.
43. In order to attract section 506 IPC, the message allegedly sent through WhatsApp must, to constitute criminal intimidation, threaten injury to the person or his reputation or property. The harm threatened must be illegal and not a threat of taking legal action. Further, the threat to be indictable, it must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. There is no mention of the details of the voice message sent to Sri. Geo Jacob or the nature of the threat hurled at the defacto complainant nor any allegation of alarm having been caused to the defacto complainant. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 35 2024:KER:72371 the accused intended to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused to cause alarm must be evident. Reference to the decisions in Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2024 INSC 363) and Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another (2015) 7 SCC 423 are relevant.
44. The allegations in the FIR are too vague to constitute any offence as alleged. The allegation is mainly against the third accused while there is nothing to indicate the involvement of the first and second accused and against whom there are no allegations even. Inclusion of conspiracy to rope in the first and second accused is without any basis. Further, except for a vague allegation of causing danger, there is no reference to any injury threatened with intent to cause any alarm to the defacto complainant. It is evident that the crime is registered with some ulterior motive. In such circumstances, Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station is liable to be quashed.
Analysis of proceedings under section 130 of BNSS. (Ann. A31 in Crl.M.C No. 6695/2024).
45. As regards the proceeding initiated under section 130 of BNSS (erstwhile section 107 Cr.P.C) is concerned, it is evident on a reading of Annexure A31 in Crl.M.C No. 6695/2024 that the show cause notice issued is against established legal principles.
46. An apprehension of a breach of peace can only be based on Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 36 2024:KER:72371 the conduct of a party, either present or in the immediate past. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on receipt of the information regarding the commission of an offence affecting the breach of peace or disturbing the public tranquility or the likelihood of a person doing a wrongful act affecting breach of peace or disturbing public tranquility, must be satisfied that circumstances are existing justifying the initiation of proceedings. If the Sub Divisional Magistrate is convinced, on such enquiry conducted by him, on the basis of the information received, he should state clearly about those circumstances in the order passed by him under S.111 Cr.P.C, calling upon the person against whom information has been received, to show cause against the execution of bond as envisaged by the provision. If the order of the Magistrate does not mention about the manner in which such satisfaction has been arrived at regarding the apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility, the person called upon to show cause will not be able to comprehend the accusation against him. The order must also reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action under S.107 Cr.P.C for preservation of peace. In the absence of such satisfaction, the proceedings initiated under the provision will be vitiated. Moidu v. State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139), Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala and Another (2015 (5) KHC 507) and Girish P. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2009 (4) KHC Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 37 2024:KER:72371
929) are relevant in this context.
47. In the instant case, other than the existence of two crimes under investigation, there are no materials to indicate that there is any possibility of breach of peace. Hence, Annexure A6 order issued under section 130 of BNSS is illegal and without authority.
Analysis of Crime No. 277/2024 of Manarcad Police Station. (subject matter of Crl.M.C No. 6639/2024)
48. As far as FIR No.277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station is concerned, the allegations reveal the commission of offences under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077. Though the search was conducted in the house of the accused in Crime No. 460/2024, the revelation of the commission of offences under the Abkari Act cannot be held to be impossible. The question whether the bottles seized are illicit liquor or not, cannot be decided by this Court at this stage. The seizure mahazar has not mentioned the existence or non-existence of the seal of the Beverages Corporation or of the Duty free shop. Of course, this Court notices that in the statement of the Investigating Officer as well as in the seizure mahazar there are references to the presence of other members of the petitioner's family and staff in the house and their names are also recorded. However, this Court is of the view that it is too premature a stage to interfere as the investigation is still ongoing and the contentions raised in this Crl.M.C is left open.
49. In the result, the following conclusions are arrived at: Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 38
2024:KER:72371
(i). The prayer for quashing the FIR in Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station now renumbered as Crime No.16/2024 of District Crime Branch, Idukki, sought in Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and Crl.M.C. No.6037/2024 is declined.
(ii). However, the investigation conducted so far in Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station, now renumbered as Crime No.16/2024 of the District Crime Branch, Idukki, is set aside, and a fresh investigation is directed. The earlier investigation conducted by both agencies shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever.
(iii). Crl.M.C No.10250/2023 and Crl.M.C. No.6037/2024 are disposed of directing the State Police Chief to constitute a Special Investigation Team, comprising of police officers of the State Crime Branch with impeccable integrity under the supervision of an eminent senior police officer to re-investigate Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station. The said investigation team shall complete the re-
investigation and file the final report at the earliest and in a time bound manner.
(iv). If the presence of the first accused in Crime No.1215/2023 of Adimaly Police Station is required, the investigating Officer shall issue a notice under section 35(3) of BNSS 2023 (earlier S.41A Cr.P.C.) as already directed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.M.C No. 8972/2023.
Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 39
2024:KER:72371
(v). Crl.M.C No. 6695/2024 is allowed and all proceedings in Crime No.460/2024 of Ettumanoor Police Station and in Annexure A31 proceedings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 27-07-2024 are quashed.
(vi). Crl.M.C No. 6639/2024 is dismissed refusing to interfere with Crime No. 277/2024 of Manarkad Police Station.
(vii). W.P.(Crl.) No. 619/2024 is dismissed in view of the orders in Crl.M.C No.6695/2024 and Crl.M.C No.6639/2024.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 40 2024:KER:72371 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10250/2023 PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1215/2023 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION
REGISTERED U/S 120B R/W 308 IPC DATED
30.06.2023
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUES DATED 8.11.2023,
8.12.2023 AND 8.1.2024 DRAWN ON EMIRATES NBD BANK, AL QUSAIS BRANCH, DUABI ISSUED BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 1215/23 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION TO THE PETITIONER Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL MC NO 8972/2023 DATED 31.10.2023 Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED 07.11.2023 Annexure A5(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE 1 ST PAGE OF THE COMPLIANT NO. SPC 513/195450/2023/PHQ WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT AS "DPC IDUKKI FOR ENQUIRY AND REPORT IN 10 DAYS FOR SPC"
Annexure A5(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE A5 FROM THE STATE POLICE CHIEF AND ADGP VIGILANCE Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D4- 55289/2023/ID DATED 17.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION OF LOOK OUT NOTICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 14.11.2023 Annexure A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMVI REPORT OF THE VEHICLES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT DATED 22.11.2023 Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 41 2024:KER:72371 Annexure A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR OF THE CRIME PREPARED BY THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE APPEAL (CRL)NO.594/24 DATED 17/05/2024 Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 25.11.2023 FILED BY MY FATHER SUBSEQUENT TO ANNEURE-A5 Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT STATE POLICE CHIEF VIDE NO.D2-
17758/24/PHQ DATED 2/2/2024 Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT NO.D2-59285/23/ID DATED 3/2/2024 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE NEW FIR REGISTERED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH AS CRIME NO.16/2024 DATED 7/2/2024 Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 31.03.2024 SENT BY THE 2ND ACCUSED TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, IDUKKI WITH COPY TO SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH AND ADGP, CRIME BRANCH RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES Annexure R6 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/09/2023 BEFORE THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA Annexure R6 (b) A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 09/05/2022 EXECUTED BETWEEN RESPONDENT NO.6 / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED Annexure R6 (c) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHARE SALE AGREEMENT VALIDATED BY DUBAI COURT Annexure R6 (d) THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF GULF FIRST SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS LLC MAINTAINED IN EMIRATES NBD, DUBAI BANK Annexure R6 (e) A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 25/07/2022 Annexure R6(f) A TRUE COPY OF SALE LETTER OF MR. JAMIL MUHAMMED FOR SALE OF HIS SHARES IN GF HOTEL AND RESORT PVT. LTD., MANKULAM DATED 03/07/2023 Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 42 2024:KER:72371 Annexure R6 (g) A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF GF Series HOTEL AND RESORT PVT. LTD. IN STATE BANK OF INDIA (ACCOUNT NO. 42050348274) AND FEDERAL BANK (ACCOUNT NO. 13030200002907) Annexure R6 (h) A TRUE COPY OF WP(C)37735/2023 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 43 2024:KER:72371 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6037/2024 PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES Annexure - I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1215/2023 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION IN IDUKKI DISTRICT DATED 30-09-2023 Annexure - II TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SAID SHANAVAS TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI DATED 20-10-2023 Annexure - III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.
8972/2023 DATED 31-10-2023 Annexure - IV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE SAID SHANAVAS FROM THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI DATED 17-11-2023 Annexure - V TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SAID SHANAVAS BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF IDUKKI DATED 24-11-2023 Annexure - VI TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE 1ST ACCUSED TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED 7-11-2023 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF Annexure - VII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-11-2023 IN CRL.M.C. NO.10250/2023 Annexure -VIII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-12-2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 10250/2023 Annexure - IX TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 17-05-2024 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 594/2024 Annexure - X TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE STATE POLICE CHIEF TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO CRIME BRANCH DATED 2-2-2024 Annexure -XI TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 16/2024 DATED 7-2-2024 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure - XII TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE DY.SP. OF POLICE, CRIME Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 44 2024:KER:72371 BRANCH DATED 01.04.2024 WITH COPY TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH Annexure - XIII TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER Annexure - XIV TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION FILED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALI POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ADIMALI IN CRIME NO. 1215/2023 DATED 18.10.2023 Annexure - XV TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE REPORT DATED 2-11-2023 OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT Annexure- XVI TRUE COPY OF THE LOOK OUT NOTICE DATED 10.11.2023 AGAINST THE 1ST PETITIONER PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBUMI DAILY Annexure - XVII TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE NO.
20/04 DATED 12.07.2004 ISSUED BY THE STATE POLICE CHIEF Annexure- XVIII TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DATED 31-08-2010 Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 45 2024:KER:72371 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6639/2024 PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
277/2024 OF MANARKAD POLICE STATION DATED 4/4/2024 Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION DATED 04.04.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANARKAD Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3/4/2024 Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE DYSP KANJIRAPPALLY DATED 21.06.2024 IN WP(CRL) 619/2024 Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024 IN WP(CRL) NO. 619/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 27.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 815/2024 DATED 08.06.2024 OF ETUMANOOR POLICE Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 46 2024:KER:72371 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6695/2024 PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
460/2024 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION DATED 15.03.2024 REGISTERED U/S 120B R/W SECTION 506 IPC Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE TELEPHONE CALLS OF THE SAID GEO JACOB TO THE 3RD PETITIONER ON 21.11.2023 IN THE WRITTEN FORMAT Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE TELEPHONE CALLS BETWEEN THE 3RD PETITIONER AND THE SAID GEO JACOB DATED 13.02.2024 IN THE WRITTEN FORMAT Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE IDUKKI WITH COPY TO DYSP IDUKKI, STATION HOUSE OFFICER ADIMALI POLICE STATION ETC DATED 24.11.2023 Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 01.04.2024 SEND BY THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CRIME NO. 1215/2023 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION WHICH WAS RE-NUMBERED AS CRIME 16/2024 OF CRIME BRANCH IDUKKI Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADIMALI POLICE EVIDENCING THE SEIZURE OF THE MOBILE PHONE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER Annexure A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE REPORT OF THE MOBILE PHONE BEARING NO. 9846331335 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2024 Annexure A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY DYSP KANJIRAPPALLY IN WP (CRL). 619/2024 DATED 21.06.2024 Annexure A10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 47 2024:KER:72371 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM LEADING TO THE REGISTRATION OF ANNEXURE A1 CRIME 26-02-2024 Annexure A11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.01.2024 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST Annexure A12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.01.2024 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU Annexure A13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.01.2024 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX Annexure A14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.01.2024 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Annexure A15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
09.01.2024 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI Annexure A16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.01.2024 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OFFICIALS AIDING FOR THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure A17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.01.2024 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE VIGILANCE SP KOTTAYAM Annexure A18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES KNOWING THE DETAILS OF LANDED PROPERTIES OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN EXCESS OF CEILING LIMIT Annexure A19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FROM THE GST DEPARTMENT DATED 25.05.2024 Annexure A20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCROACHMENT SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR DEVIKULAM DEMARCATING THE ENCROACHMENT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 48 2024:KER:72371 CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESORT AT MANKULAM Annexure A21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE TAHSILAR DEVIKULAM DATED 24.01.2024 ABOUT THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROHIBITED AREA Annexure A22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR DATED 05.01.2024 TO THE TAHSILDAR DEVIKULAM ABOUT THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure A23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 01.01.2024 TO THE TAHSILDAR LA FOR ENQUIRING ABOUT THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT AT MANKULAM Annexure A24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT DATED 18.07.2024 IN WP(CRL) 619/2024 Annexure A25 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTIVE NO. 20/04 DATED 12.07.2024 Annexure A26 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DATED 31.08.2010 IN RESPECT OF THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CIRCULAR NOTICE AND ITS PERFORMA Annexure A27 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SLP 594/2024 DATED 17.05.2024 Annexure A28 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.07.2024 FILED BY ADVOCATE ROY GEORGE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ALONG WITH CALL DETAILS Annexure A29 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 IN WP(CRL) 619/2024 Annexure A30 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024 IN WP(CRL) 619/2024 Annexure A31 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 27.07.2024 Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 49 2024:KER:72371 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 619/2024 PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.460/2024 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION REGISTERED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT DATED 15/03/2024 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.1215/2023 DATED 30/09/2023 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/10/2023 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DARTED 31/10/2023 IN CRL.M.C.8972/2023 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 1 ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT DATED 07/11/2023 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED 25/11/2023 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29/11/2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.10250/2023 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12/12/2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.10250/2023 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE APPEAL (CRIMINAL) 594/2024 DATED 17/05/2024 Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT DATED 02/02/2024 VIDE ORDER NO.
D2-17758/2024/PHQ
Exhibit P11 THE ENDORSEMENT NO.D2-59285/23/ID DATED
03/02/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI ENDORSING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.16/2024 OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH DATED 07.02.2024 Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 50 2024:KER:72371 Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCIDK/7753/2023-C10 DATED 01/01/2024 Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1568535/24 DATED 05/01/2024 Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCROACHMENT SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.26/24 DATED 24/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANKULAM Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 09/01/2024 Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE MINISTER, STATE OF KERALA DATED 02/02/2024 Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 09/01/2024 Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST DATED 06/01/2024 Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT DIRECTOR DATED 10/01/2024 Exhibit P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) DATED 06/01/2024 Exhibit P23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DATED 10/01/2024 Exhibit P24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2 ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT DT. 15/01/2024 AGAINST THE SECRETARY, MANKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND FOREST OFFICIALS Exhibit P25 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 51 2024:KER:72371 THE 2 ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, DT. 04/01/2024 Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS Exhibit P27 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5 TH RESPONDENT DATED 26/02/2024 BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P28 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07/04/2024 FILED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER'S WIFE BEFORE THE 7 TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P29 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
277/2024 DATED 03/04/2024 Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SEND BY THE 2 ND ACCUSED IN EXHIBIT P2 TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH IDUKKI EXPLAINING THE SCENARIO OF STAGED ROAD ACCIDENT Exhibit P31 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/11/2023 GIVEN BY THE 2 ND PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI Exhibit P32 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 2 ND PETITIONER DATED 13/04/2024 BEFORE THE STATE POLICE CHIEF Exhibit P33 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 3 RD PETITIONER DATED 13/04/2024 BEFORE THE STATE POLICE CHIEF RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE TELEPHONE CALLS OF THE SAID GEO JACOB TO THE 3RD PETITIONER IN THE WRITTEN FORMAT ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE TELEPHONE CALLS BETWEEN THE 3RD PETITIONER AND THE SAID GEO JACOB DATED 13.02.2024 IN THE WRITTEN FORMAT Crl.M.C No.10250/23 &Conn. Cases 52 2024:KER:72371 ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASAR DATED 03.04.2024 ANNEXURE 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.06.2024 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE 1 SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY DYSP KOTTAYAM DATED 11-06-2024