Hamras Muhammed vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioner challenges the registration of FIR No. 637/2022 of Varappuzha Police Station. Even though in the FIR, petitioner’s name is not included in the array of accused, it was submitted that he is now included as accused No.5.

According to Sri. Samsudin Panolan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations in the FIR do not implicate the petitioner as an accused and hence, the proceedings ought to be quashed.

Sri. Noushad. K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submitted that the investigation is only at the initial stages and therefore, the FIR ought not to be quashed, which will scuttle the entire investigation.

In State of Hariyana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Supreme Court had observed that FIR could be quashed in exceptional circumstances where the admitted allegations do not make out any offence against the accused.

In the instant case, a perusal of the prosecution case reveals that the accused had allegedly obtained unlawful gain after conspiring together for illegal transportation of narcotic drugs and arranged visa and other documents for the son of the defacto complainant for travel to Dubai. After reaching Dubai, defacto complainant's son was entrusted with a packet by the agents of the accused and was thereafter asked to proceed to Qatar where he was caught and he continues to remain in jail. The allegations in the FIR indicates a conspiracy that was hatched by the accused for transporting narcotic drugs to various places using innocent persons who have become victims of the crime, according to the defacto complainant.

Since the investigation is only at the initial stage and the allegations are serious with far reaching consequences, I am of the view that scuttling the investigation at this stage is not legally proper. Exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. requires caution and restraint. Merely because at the initial stage of registration of a crime, the entire width and amplitude of the crime or involvement of the accused had not been specifically mentioned, the same cannot deter the investigating agencies from proceeding against persons who are found to be involved in the crime. Latitude must be available to every investigating officer, failing which the investigation will be defeated.

Having regard to the above circumstances, this is not a fit case where the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought to be invoked.

Accordingly, criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed.