Sundareshan vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.647/2018 of Kottiyam Police station, Kollam District. The aforesaid crime was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 419,468,471 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Prosecution case is as follows:

The 1st petitioner is a licensee of a Ration shop bearing ARD No.300 within the jurisdiction of Taluk Supply Officer, Kollam. It is alleged that, in addition to the ration card bearing No.1207139162 issued in the name of the 1st petitioner, three other ration cards bearing Nos.1207139116, 1207139374 and 1207139349 in the names of Shobhana, Sreekala and Seetha were created by the accused persons and it is also alleged that, in the said three ration cards, the photos affixed were that of accused Nos.2 to 4 respectively. The allegation is that the aforesaid fake ration cards were created by the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention to cause unlawful loss to the Government and to make unlawful gains to them. Annexure-A1 FIR was registered based on a communication issued by the Taluk Supply Officer, Kollam, and after completing the investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was submitted. It is seen that, even though no evidence could be collected by the Investigating Officer, they submitted a report stating it as undetected instead of referring the case as no offences were made out. This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioners in such circumstances contending that, as the final report submitted was with a finding ‘undetected’, it is causing prejudice to them. It is pointed out that the petitioners 3 and 4 are intending to go abroad, and the undetected report submitted by the Investigating Officer is causing difficulties for them in getting the police clearance certificate. This Crl.M.C. is filed in such circumstances for quashing Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

Heard Smt. Hemalatha, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since no materials could be collected by the Investigating Officer for implicating the petitioners, the final report ought to have been submitted by exonerating the petitioners from the culpability.

On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid contentions by pointing out that the Investigating Officer submitted the report because, in case any materials could be collected by the Investigating Officer at any later point of time, they can re-open the investigation and submit a final report implicating the accused for the offences and prosecute them.

I have gone through the records, including the Case Diary and heard the contentions raised from either side.

It is discernible from the materials placed on record that, during the course of investigation, even though it was found that, the addresses mentioned in the three ration cards allegedly procured by the accused persons were fake, no materials could be collected by the Investigating Officer to connect the petitioners herein with the creation of the said documents. It is discernible from Annexure-A2 final report that even though all the documents based on which the aforesaid cards were issued were procured from the Taluk Supply office, apart from the fact that the photos affixed on the said cards were that of accused Nos.2 to 4, they could collect no other incriminating materials. It is also discernible from the records that a search was conducted in the residence of the accused persons but what the Investigating team could recover is the ration card which was originally issued in the name of the 1st accused, and the same was a genuine one. None of the cards allegedly created falsely could be recovered by the Investigating team. Apart from the above, the investigation also reveals that the cards in question were never utilised by any person to purchase any ration articles. It is evident from the case diary that, as part of the investigation, statements of several witnesses were recorded, but no material connecting the accused persons with the commission of the crime could be collected.

Annexure-A2 final report was submitted in such circumstances, apparently to re-open the case if the Investigating Officer could collect any materials. It is to be noted that, Annexure-A2 final report is seen to have been accepted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, on 22.6.2020. Thus it is evident that more than two years have elapsed since the date of submission of Annexure-A2 and four years elapsed since the date of registration of the FIR, but even now no materials could be collected by the Investigating Officer. It is an admitted fact that, so far, no materials are available for implicating the accused persons. Since the Investigating Officer could not collect any materials even after four years of registration of the crime, which is a comparatively longer period, I do not find any scope for collecting any further materials in connection with the same in future. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact that, the final report is submitted with an option to re-open the same upon getting any materials in this regard, would cause serious prejudice to them as it would come in their way of getting a police clearance certificate in their favour. While considering the hardship that is being caused to the accused persons in respect of the uncertainty involved in the matter of investigation against the petitioners, I am of the view that some indulgence needs to be shown in this matter. Since the Police could not collect any further materials even after four years of registration of the crime, the prospects of a further investigation into the matter are too remote. In such circumstances, taking into account the comparative hardships and the lack of any probability in collecting the materials against the petitioners, I deem it proper to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. While taking this view, I have taken note of the fact that the 1st and 2nd petitioners are aged persons and the 3rd and 4th petitioners, who are the daughters of the 1st and 2nd petitioners are aspiring to go abroad for which a police clearance certificate is required.

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report submitted in Crime No.647/2018 of Kottiyam Police Station, Kollam District and all proceedings pursuant to it pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam are hereby quashed.