Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN TUESDAY, THE25H DAY OF FEBRUARY20146TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1807 of 2013 ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 144/2013 OF PADAGIRI POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD --------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO6 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. ALLIMUTHU, S/O.KARUMBAKOWDER, AGED44YEARS, PUTHUPADI, CHANDRAMALA ESTATE, NELLIAMPATHY CHITTOOR THALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 508.
2. M.RAMAN, S/O.MANIKYAN, AGED44YEARS RESIDING AT QUARTERS, GOVT.ORANGE AND VEGETABLE FARM, NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTOOR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678511.
3. SELVI, W/O.KUMARAN, AGED43YEARS RESIDING AT QUARTERS, GOVT.ORANGE AND VEGETABLE FARM, NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTOOR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
4. UMA MAHESWARY, W/O.K.SUBHRAMANIAN, AGED44YEARS RESIDING AT QUARTERS GOVT.ORANGE AND VEGETABLE FARM, NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTOOR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
5. KUPPAMMA, W/O.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED44YEARS HOUSE NO.3/296, NELLIAMPATHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTOOR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
6. DANDAPANI, S/O.MAYILSWAMI, AGED44YEARS, HOUSE NO.3/360, NELLIAMPATHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTOOR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH PJ ....2/- ..2.. Crl.MC.No. 1807 of 2013 ---------------------------------- RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PADAGRI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3. JOY,S/O.VARGHESE, AGED30YEARS, GOVT. ORANGE AND VEGETABLE FARM, NELLIAMPATHY, CHITTOOR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. * ADDL.R4 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED4 THE GOVERNMENT ORANGE AND VEGETABLE FARM, NELLIAMPATHY, PALAKKAD-678511. IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER
DT.26/4/2013 IN CRL.MC.1807/2013. R1,2,4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JATHESH. R. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SRI.M.V.ANANDAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2502-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 1807 of 2013 --------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------ ANNX.A - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.144/13 OF PADAGIRI POLICE STATION. ANNX.B - TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF MEN AND WOMEN WORKERS ANNX.C - TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION LIST PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY. ANNX.D - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN O.A.NO.2591/12 DATED1502-13, BY THE HONOURABLE KAT,TRIVANDRUM. ANNX.E - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN O.A.NO.447/13 DATED2603-13, BY THE HONORABLE KAT, TRIVANDRUM. ANNX.F - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN O.A.NO.12(EKM)/12 DATED0703-13 BY THE HONORABLE KAT, TRIVANDRUM ANNX.G - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED303/13 BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -------------------------------------------- R3(A): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.(RT)NO.2664 DATED1812/2008 OF THE AGRICULTURE (FARMS) DEPARTMENT R3(B): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED299/2011 OF THE FARM SUPERINTENDENT OF4H RESPONDENT R3(C): COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FARM SUPERINTENDENT R3(D): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.14144/A.V.C.V(3)2012 DATED79/2012 R3(E): COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED263/2013 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA.NO.447 OF2013R3(F): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED1211/2012 OF THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER. R3(G): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD NO.E(2)2701/13 DATED154/13 R3(H): COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PALAKKAD. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE PJ P.D. RAJAN, J.
======================== Crl.M.C.No.1807 of 2013 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2014 ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings in Crime No.144 of 2013 of Padagiri Police Station, Palakkad which was registered under Sections 463, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, against petitioners who are A1 to A6 in the above crime.
2. The third respondent filed Annexure A8 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathoor which was forwarded to Padagiri Police Station for investigation under Section 156 (3). After getting the above complaint, Padagiri police registered the above crime and investigated the same. The third respondent's case was that the petitioners are employees of Government Orange and Vegetable Farm at Nelliyampathy. While they were working as casual Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -2- labourers, they obtained forged birth certificate and qualification certificate and produced them before Farm Superintendent and on the basis of that, they became permanent employees of the farm. Knowing this, the third respondent filed the above complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate and initiated action against them. Hence, petitioners approach this court to quash Annexure A8 to A13 complaint invoking inherent jurisdiction.
3. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there is no bonafides in the above complaint. By influencing the police, they filed false case against the petitioners. The third respondent has not reported the matter to the officials of the Government Orange and Vegetable Farm Department for taking any action against the petitioners. The appointment was conducted by the Superintendent of the Farm after verifying the copies of ration card and the certificate issued from the concerned medical officer. petitioners Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -3- are illiterate farm workers. They never forged any document or committed any crime as alleged. In the absence of any action from the side of the agriculture department and from the Superintendent of Orange Farm no prosecution will lie against them.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent strongly resisted the above contention and contended that he is a worker of the Orange Farm for several years and has direct knowledge about it. Petitioners are born and brought up near Nelliyampathy, their original birth certificate and other certificate showing the qualification are available with them. Suppressing those documents, they obtained the above job which amounts to forgery and cheating. The appointing authority noticed the above difference in Annexure C verification report.
5. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether this a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -4- under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Section 482 Cr.P.C., the inherent jurisdiction can be invoked for the three grounds mentioned therein. The section confers unlimited powers for using inherent jurisdiction to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice. In this context, I have considered the main pleadings in Annexure A complaint. The defacto complainant is a worker in the aforesaid Government Orange and Vegetable Farm, Nelliyampathy. His allegation is that petitioners obtained a job in the aforesaid Government Orange and Vegetable Farm by submitting false document. petitioners are born and brought up in and around Nelliyampathy and they got preliminary education from the local school. Suppressing those educational aspects they obtained a job by submitting copies of ration card and certificate issued from the Doctors from the Government Hospital. The Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -5- fourth respondent has no objection with regard to the above averment. Third respondent has not filed any complaint before the fourth respondent challenging the above appointment. He has not reported the matter to the higher authorities of Government Orange and Vegetable Farm. The Principal Agriculture Officer has verified the certificate and recommended for appointment. The Director of Agricultural Department is controlling the aforesaid Government Farm. De facto complainant has not brought the aforesaid forgery of document before those responsible officers.
6. petitioners are working in the farm for a pretty long time who are poor coolies. They are representing the lower strata of the society. If that be the position, how the appointing authority give appointment in that farm after considering the ration card and the certificate issued from the medical officer. What are the criteria issued by the appointing authority for getting an Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -6- appointment in the farm is also not disclosed in the complaint. If in the notification issued by the government, the certificate issued from the medical officer is sufficient or production of the copy of the ration card is sufficient for getting such an appointment is also not disclosed. These aspects are not highlighted in the petition. Without perusing the appointment conditions, it is difficult to say that they have committed any forgery with regard to their age. It is purely within the discretion of the Government.
7. What is the minimum qualification for getting appointment in the Government Orange and Vegetable Farm as a casual labourer? For manual work if the extract of the ration card is sufficient, I cannot say that they have committed any forgery for obtaining a certificate. If the minimum qualification prescribed for that job is knowledge in reading and writing is also not disclosed. The defacto complainant/third respondent Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -7- cannot say that these people committed forgery as alleged. Therefore, a detailed probe into that aspect is necessary. Those aspects are to be considered by the appointing authority and by the Government. Here, such an allegation is not found in this case. Suppose, if any documents are forged by the petitioners, which was accepted by the Superintendent and the Principal Agriculture Officer at the time of verification, and they admitted those documents realizing the real facts, such appointments are done with the knowledge of the Superintendent and Agriculture Officer. They are government officials for prosecuting them a sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary. Reason for not obtaining any sanction in such a situation is also to be explained by the de facto complainant. Sanction from Government is necessary for prosecution of the fourth respondent and the Principal Agriculture Officer. Therefore, analysing the facts and Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -8- documents produced before this court, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for invoking inherent jurisdiction.
5. Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, The Supreme Court held that: [1992 SCC (Crl.) 426] "(1) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR of other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non- cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155 (2). (5) Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -9- prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accuse with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance." 6. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction and I quash Annexure A complaint, Annexure A5 in Crime No.144/2013 of Padagiri police station, Palakkad by invoking inherent jurisdiction. Third respondent is at liberty to approach the Crl.M.C.No.1807/13 -10- Director of Agriculture department with a fresh petition impleading the Principal Agriculture Officer and the Superintendent of Orange and Vegetable Farm if any appointment is made as alleged. If any petition is filed, the Director of Agriculture Department shall conduct a proper enquiry with regard to the appointment of all the persons appointed by the Superintendent of Orange and Vegetable Farm and take action against them according to law. Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE kvr/ /True copy/ P.S. to Judge