High Court Kerala High Court

V.Mohammed Azeem vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
V.Mohammed Azeem vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4969 of 2008()



1. V.MOHAMMED AZEEM
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/12/2008

 O R D E R
                              R. BASANT, J.
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Crl.M.C.Nos. 4969, 4979 & 4990 of 2008
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008

                                 O R D E R

The petitioners are accused 2 to 4 in a crime registered

alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 468 and

471 I.P.C. Crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint

filed by the Branch Manger of Kerala State Co-operative Bank,

Kannur. The first accused is the Senior Manager of the bank and

accused 2 to 4 are junior assistants, who were working in the said

branch.

2. The crux of the allegations is that the first accused in

collusion with accused 2 to 4 and others ensured that false

documents were created to facilitate siphoning out of amounts of

the bank to the hands of undeserved persons. Crime has been

registered. Investigation is in progress. The first accused has

retired from service. All others have by now been arrested and

released, it is submitted.

3. The petitioners have come to this court with a prayer to

quash the criminal prosecution invoking the jurisdiction under

Crl.M.C.Nos. 4969, 4979 & 4990 of 2008
2

Section 482 Cr.P.C. This court undoubtedly has jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an F.I.R. in an appropriate case. But that

is an exceptional relief that can be granted to a party. Ordinarily and

normally this court would not interfere with the investigation in a

crime unless the interests of justice compellingly demand such a

course.

4. I shall carefully avoid detailed reference to disputed facts.

The crux of the allegations, it appears, is that the petitioners who are

officers working under/with the first accused have colluded with the

first accused in the culpable conduct indulged in by him. There is an

allegation that accused 2 to 4 had known about the illegal and

fraudulent transactions. There is an allegation that the loan

applications were prepared in the hand of these petitioners. Without

the knowledge and collusion of the petitioners, the first accused could

not have indulged in this culpable act, it is alleged.

5. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion on the

acceptability of those allegations. Suffice it to say that I am not

persuaded to agree that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under

Crl.M.C.Nos. 4969, 4979 & 4990 of 2008
3

Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or deserves to be invoked to quash the F.I.R.

registered against the petitioners. I am satisfied that the police must

conduct a fair and proper investigation and come to appropriate

conclusions/decisions on the basis of such materials collected.

6. These Crl.M.Cs. are accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to

observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the

acceptability of the allegations. I have only chosen to take the view

that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be invoked at

this stage.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm