P.K. Muralikrishnan vs The State of Kerala and Others

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner was working as the legal advisor to the Vigilance Department attached to the court of learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur. While so, certain complaints (allegedly) arose against him based on which the then Special Judge (impleaded as fourth Respondent) forwarded a confidential report to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Vigilance (C) Department. On that report, the Additional Chief Secretary sought explanation of Petitioner and he gave Annexure-B, explanation. While so, one Jaleel preferred Annexure-C, complaint before the learned Special Judge (fourth Respondent) making certain allegations against Petitioner which would come within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On that complaint, learned Special Judge (fourth Respondent) passed Annexure-D, order directing the Vigilance to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit report. While so, the fifth Respondent filed yet another complaint, Annexure-M before the same learned Special Judge raising similar allegations against Petitioner. On that complaint, learned Special Judge (fourth Respondent) passed Annexure-N, order directing that a case to be registered u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and submit final report. The challenge in this proceeding is to Anneuxre-N, order. It is contended in the petition that since the very same learned Special Judge (fourth Respondent) had forwarded Crl.MC No. 2379/2010 Annexure-A, report to the second Respondent, it was inappropriate for the learned Special Judge to pass Annexure-N on a similar complaint filed by fifth Respondent.

When this matter came up for hearing learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that fourth Respondent who then was the Special Judge of the court concerned has since then been transferred and another Special Judge has taken charge in the said court. In the circumstances, much of the grievance of Petitioner has ceased to exist. Learned Counsel submits that in the circumstances, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case may be closed without prejudice to the right of Petitioner to raise appropriate contentions before learned Special Judge on submission of the final report if any in the matter. I have heard learned Counsel for fourth Respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor also. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to allow the request.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed without prejudice to the right of Petitioner to raise appropriate contentions before learned Special Judge on submission of the final report if any, in the matter.