Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(CRL.) NO. 536 OF 2022 PETITIONER: K.KALAKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, SREEJA BHAVAN, ACHANKOVIL P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR (VIA), KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 696. BY ADVS. ABDUL JAWAD K. A.GRANCY JOSE RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM-691 310. 3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THENMALA POLICE STATION, THENMALA P.O., KOLLAM-691 308. 4 MURUKESAN.R., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.RAMAMCHANDRAN PILLAI, BEENA VILASOM, ACHANKOVIL P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR (VIA), KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 696. OTHER PRESENT:-SRI.P.G.MANU SR. Public Prosecutor
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(Crl.)No.536 of 2022 ..2.. [CR]
JUDGMENT
This W.P.(Crl.) has been filed to quash the entire proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 FIR in Crime No.147/2002 of Thenmala Police Station on the ground of inordinate delay in completing the investigation and submitting the final report.
2. A crime was registered against the petitioner at the Thenmala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC as early as in the year 2002.
3. Originally, the crime was registered under Section
174 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the suicide committed by the wife of the petitioner. Thereafter, the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC were incorporated.
4. After the investigation, the final report was
submitted at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur on 30.12.2003. It was returned noting certain defects. So far, it has not been resubmitted curing the defects even though more than 20 years have been elapsed.
5. I have heard Sri.Abdul Jawad.K., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Manu, learned Senior Public Prosecutor. W.P.(Crl.)No.536 of 2022 ..3..
6. When the case came up for hearing on the last posting date, I had directed the SHO, Thenmala Police Station to offer explanation as to why the final report could not be resubmitted for the last 18 years. Accordingly, he has submitted a detailed report offering explanation.
7. The explanation offered by the SHO, Thenmala Police Station would show that, after the investigation, initially, the final report was filed at the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Punalur on 30.12.2003. However, the learned Magistrate returned the final report on 16.5.2006 as it was not accompanied by the FIR and other related documents initially submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.No.950/2020 gave a direction to the SHO, Thenmala Police Station to collect all records and to re-present the final report as early as possible. As per the said direction, the final report was resubmitted on 17.4.2021, that too after the elapse of 15 years of its return. But the said final report was also returned on 21.4.2021 with specific remarks for not attaching copy of the final opinion of item Nos.11, 12, 16 and 10. Thereafter, it has not been resubmitted so far.
W.P.(Crl.)No.536 of 2022 ..4..
8. In the report, the SHO has stated that, the original
CD file itself is missing and only record available is the returned final report and statement. It is further stated that the CD files and MOs kept in the thondi room of the Thenmala Police Station have been perished irretrievably owing to the leakage of the roof and he suspects that the CD file in Crime No.147/2002 is also lost irrecoverably.
9. As stated already, it is a case where the crime was registered as early as in the year 2002 and the final report could not be submitted by the police even after the lapse of 20
years. According to the petitioner, he has been suffering from mental trauma for these years as he had been put under the shadow of accusation before the society at large. He submits that his right to clear his name off the accusation at the earliest has been denied by the latches on the part of the investigating agency.
10. The petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk
at the time of his wife's death. He was arrested during investigation. He was suspended from service consequent to his arrest from 15/7/2002 to 17/7/2003. He was reinstated in service pursuant to an order of this Court. It is submitted that W.P.(Crl.)No.536 of 2022 ..5..
the period of suspension has not been regularized so far and it can be regularized only upon culmination of trial of the case. According to the petitioner, the pending investigation has prejudicially affected his service prospects. It is alleged that each time his promotion was deferred due to the pendency of the case.
11. The delay in completing the investigation and resubmitting the final report cannot in any way be attributed
to any act of the petitioner. There is no proper explanation whatsoever for the delay by the investigating agency. Article 21 of the Constitution of India assures qualitative life and personal liberty for all citizens. While interpreting the said right, the Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon and Others v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81] has held
that an expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. This exposition of law was further developed by proving
guidelines by the constitution bench of the Apex Court in
Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others v. R.S.Nayak and Another [(1992) 1 SCC 225]. It was held that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial emanating from Article W.P.(Crl.)No.536 of 2022 ..6.. 21 is properly reflected in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for early investigation, speedy and fair trial. While affirming the ratio in Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra), the seven Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578] held that guidelines in Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra) was not exhaustive, but only illustrative. In Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 355], the Apex Court further held that right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 and such right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigation as well.
12. The explanation offered by the SHO would show that even the CD file has been lost irrecoverably. The documents are also not available. The original of the FIR, the
material objects allegedly collected and other materials relating to the case are also reported to be not traceable. Thus, the trial of the case has virtually become impossible due to the non availability of the relevant records. The direction of W.P.(Crl.)No.536 of 2022 ..7..
the Magistrate to resubmit the charge sheet with all materials was also not honored even though more than 1½ years have been passed since Ext.P5 order. The report given by the SHO would show that there are no chances to trace out the records and materials so as to resubmit the final report and thereafter to commence the trial. The petitioner has been facing the trauma of a criminal case against him for the last twenty years. The petitioner cannot be compelled to undergo this
trauma any more. All these circumstances warrant quashing of the entire proceedings. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending. Accordingly, the entire proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.147/2002 of Thenmala Police Station hereby stand quashed.
The W.P.(Crl.) is allowed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj W.P.(Crl.)No.536 of 2022 ..8.. APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 536/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.147/2002 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH AN ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE OFFICER OF THE COURT THEREON. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2002 OF THE JFMC I, PUNALUR REJECTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR BAIL. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL WAS SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFMC I, PUNALUR. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2020 IN CMP 950/2020 IN CR.NO.147/2002 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION PASSED BY THE JFMC I, PUNALUR. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-07-2020 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SOUTHERN CIRCLE, KOLLAM GRANTING THIRD TIME BOUND HIGHER GRADE TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED 01-01-2014 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (DFO), ACHANCOVIL. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPRECIATION ISSUED BY THE DFO, ACHANCOVIL.