Kerala High Court
C.T.Maggi vs State Of Kerala on 31 January, 2025
2025:KER:7871
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 11TH MAGHA, 1946
O.P.(CRL.) NO. 331 OF 2024
AGAINST CRIME VC NO.17 OF 2012 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER&
SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
C.T.MAGGI,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O THOMAS K.K, RETIRED HSST (MATHS) AND FORMER
PTA SECRETARY, V.R APPU MEMORIAL HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, THYCAUD SOUTH, BRAHAMAKULAM,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOOTHUR HOUSE,
BRAHMAKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680104.
BY ADVS.
K.A.MANZOOR ALI
FAYIZA PARVEEN ZAHEER
RESPONDENTS/STATE & 3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 690001.
2025:KER:7871
2
O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.
3 C.B.BHAGEERATHAN,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, NENMINI.P.O,
THYCAUD, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680104.
SMT REKHA S, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIG)
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 27.01.2025, THE COURT ON 31.01.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:7871
3
O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the accused in Crime No.VC 17/2012/TSR of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P4 FIR and set aside Exts.P6 and P9 orders. The Special Court as per Ext.P9 order directed the investigating officer to conduct a further investigation.
2. The petitioner has raised various grounds; both legal and factual in support of her plea. Starting from want of approval from the competent authority to conduct an investigation, lack of sanction, to insufficiency of materials have been set forth as grounds for quashing the proceedings. In answer to the said contentions, a statement was filed by the 2nd respondent. The steps taken during investigation and the opinion formed are stated in paragraphs No.4 to 7 of the 2025:KER:7871 4 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024 said statement which read as follows:
"4. It is submitted that during the investigation, the IO has examined 37 witnesses and seized and perused 31 documents listed as Exhibit. The investigation revealed that the accused was officiating as the Head Mistress of the School from 2004 onwards and she is the custodian and responsible person for maintaining the Parent Teachers Association account and the Noon Meal Account. It is seen that Rs.1,15,127/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Seven only) was allotted from the Assistant Educational Officer's Office and Rs.24,381/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty One only) was allotted from Thaikad Panchayath for noon feeding expenses during the year 2004 to 2009. Out of this, Rs.1,07,963/- (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three only) was found expended by the accused and a variation of Rs.31,545/- (Rupees Thirty-One Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Five only) was found in this regard.
5. It is submitted that upon investigation, an amount of Rs.8,278.40/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Eight and Forty Paisa only) was found expended in excess for distribution of boiled eggs during the period 2005- 2009. It is disclosed that the accused had neither maintained registers properly nor followed the rules relating to the maintenance of Parent Teachers Association fund. Thus, she failed to do transactions relating to Noon meal fund and Parent Teachers Association fund through Bank, though there is a specific Government direction in this regard and also kept the amount in her hand which caused loss of Bank interest 2025:KER:7871 5 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024 for the amount. She had failed to maintain accounts of Parent Teachers Association fund properly and also failed to publish the amount collected from the students on the notice board of the school.
6. It is submitted that the IO has recommended for departmental action with a major penalty against the accused and also to recover Rs.39,823/- (Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Three only) from the accused Smt. C.T. Maggie. The case was final reported as Further Action Dropped before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, on 13.3.2014. And the Hon'ble Court rejected the refer report on 05.02.2016. Thereafter the Complainant Bagheerathan lodged a petition before the General Education Department for seeking request for prosecution sanction against Smt. C.T. Maggie, Head Mistress & Secretary of Parent Teachers Association of VR Appu Master Memorial Higher Secondary School, Thaikad on 07.06.2016. The General Education Department rejected the petition of Bagheerathan on 29.04.2017 vide order No. GO(Rt) No. 1195/2017 (in accordance with the Judgment of High Court of Kerala dated 23.01.2017 in WP(C) No.2286/2017 filed by Sri.C.B. Bagheerathan). The Hon'ble Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge returned the final report for conducting further investigation of the case on 04.02 2023.
7. It is submitted that after conducting further investigation by examining 2 additional witnesses nothing more could be obtained from them as they have not deposed anything against the accused. No more evidence has been obtained on further investigation to prove the misappropriation done by the Headmistress. The 2025:KER:7871 6 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024 Headmistress got retired from service on 30.06.2018, accordingly recommendation for taking action u/s 111, 59 (d) of the Kerala Service Act, and to recover the amount has been made. The further investigation in VC 17/2012 was in final stage."
3. Despite receipt of notice, the 3rd respondent did not chose to appear before the court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
5. The petitioner was the Headmistress of V.R.Appu Master Memorial Higher Secondary School, Thaikad, Thrissur. She allegedly had misappropriated funds of the Parent- Teacher Association in the School. The allegations are that an amount of Rs.8,278.40 was expended in excess by the petitioner in respect of distribution of boiled eggs during the period 2004-2009. The further allegation was that she failed to maintain proper accounts concerning the income and expenditure of the Parent-Teacher Association funds, and an amount of Rs.31,545/- was found unsupported by any vouchers. The respondent would maintain that on 13.03.2014 2025:KER:7871 7 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024 a report in the matter was submitted before the Special Court for dropping the further proceedings. Such a view was taken reckoning also the fact that a departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated in imposition of a major penalty and recovery of Rs.39,823/-, the amount found deficit in the account.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the enquiry and in the investigation, commission of any offence was not revealed. Further, the request of the 3 rd respondent-complainant for sanction to prosecute the petitioner was declined by the Government as per Ext.P8 G.O. However, without considering those matters, the Special Court as per Ext.P9 directed a further investigation. That as well as the irregularity occurred in the proceedings of the Special Court are highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to fortify the plea for quashing the FIR and the order directing further investigation.
7. Ext.P2 is the complaint lodged by the 3 rd respondent. The Special Court after considering the allegation 2025:KER:7871 8 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024 in the complaint and the preliminary enquiry report, directed as per Ext.P3 an investigation into the matter. The crime was registered in obedience to the said direction vide Ext.P4 FIR. Ext.P5 is the report submitted by the 2 nd respondent requesting to drop the further proceedings. The Special Court refused to accept the same. The Special Court accordingly directed that the complainant would be examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). That would show that the Special Court had decided to proceed as provided in Chapter XV of the Code.
8. Presumably, the 3rd respondent would have approached the Government for sanction to prosecute the petitioner, which was a condition precedent for the Special Court to proceed further with the complaint. It is seen from Ext.P8 that the 3rd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.2286 of 2017 espousing the delay being occurred in considering his request for sanction to prosecute the petitioner. As per the judgment dated 23.01.2017, this Court directed the Principal Secretary, General Education (A) Department to take an appropriate 2025:KER:7871 9 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024 decision in the matter of prosecution sanction. Ext.P8 is the decision taken by the Government and by that order, the request of the 3rd respondent for sanction to prosecute the petitioner was rejected.
9. It is not seen from Ext.P9 that the Special Court while passing the order has taken into account any of the said developments. Without adverting to such aspects of the matter, the Special Court directed a further investigation. When the Special Court as per Ext.P6 had decided to proceed with the complaint on its own, how a further investigation could take place in the matter, is quite intriguing. Also, the order of the competent authority refusing to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner was disregarded. Unless annulled, Ext.P8 would stand in the way of prosecuting the petitioner. No action to challenge Ext.P8 order is seen taken.
10. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of this case, the observations of the Apex court in Vasanti Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2012) 2 SCC 731] becomes relevant. Paragraph Nos.20 and 21 are extracted 2025:KER:7871 10 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024 below:
"20. Since the Special Judge in the instant matter refused to accept the closure report dated 18.05.2004 without any enquiry or reason why he refused to accept it which was submitted by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Jabalpur after re-investigation for which reasons had been assigned and there was also lack of sanction for prosecution against the appellant which was necessary for launching prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, we deem it just and appropriate to hold that the Special Judge clearly committed error of jurisdiction by directing re-investigation of the matter practically for the third time in spite of his noticing that sanction for prosecution was also lacking, apart from the fact that the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, after re- investigation had given its report why the matter was not fit to be proceeded with.
21. We are therefore of the considered view that the Special Judge in the wake of all these legal flaws as also the fact that the Special Judge under the circumstance was not competent to proceed in the matter without sanction for prosecution, could not have ordered for re-investigation of the case for the third time by refusing to accept closure report dated 18.05.2004. This amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law resulting into vexatious proceeding and harassment of the appellant for more than 10 years without discussing any reason why he disagreed with the report of the Lokayukta and consequently the closure report which would have emerged if the Special Judge had carefully proceeded in accordance with the procedure enumerated for initiation of proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure."
2025:KER:7871 11 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024
11. The conclusion is therefore irresistible. Ext.P9 order is liable to be set aside. I do so. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 FIR are hereby quashed. The original petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:7871 12 O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024 APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 331/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. SC-85/0607/KKD DATED 22.01.2008 OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 31.03.2012 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE VIGILANCE COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE THRISSUR IN C.M.P NO. 996/2010.
EXHIBIT P4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 17/12
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER ON
14.08.2012 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
12/6/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
05.02.2016 IN VC NO.17/2012 TSR OF THE
COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25/11/2016 OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, KERALA ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.
GO(RT) NO. 1195/2017/G.EDN. DATED
29.04.2017 REJECTING SANCTION TO
PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER.
2025:KER:7871
13
O.P.(Crl.) No.331 of 2024
EXHIBIT P9 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
4/2/2023 IN V C 17/2012/TSR PASSED BY
THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR