IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3959 of 2006()
1. M.A.ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.ABUBECKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.I. OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY.
... Respondent
2. C.I. OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY.
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.HASSAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/12/2006
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3959 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December 2006
O R D E R
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in crime No.296/06 of
Kanjirapally police station. The crux of the allegation in that
complaint is the first accused, to whom he had handed over 29
passports and cash, had cheated the petitioner/defacto complainant in
that crime. These passports admittedly were obtained by the
petitioner from different individuals in connection with the
professional activity of the petitioner.
2. Later, one of the persons, who had entrusted the passport
to the petitioner also lodged a complaint before the police and on the
basis of that complaint, crime No.412/06 has been registered against
the petitioner. In that crime also, it is alleged that the
accused/petitioner herein has committed the offence punishable under
Section 420 I.P.C. The allegation is that the petitioner had, with
fraudulent intention, received the passport and amounts from the
defacto complainant in crime No.412/2006. The petitioner has been
arrested and released on bail in the said crime.
3. The petitioner has come to this court with the prayer that
the F.I.R registered against him in Crime No.412/2006 and all further
Crl.M.C.No.3959/06 2
steps taken in pursuance of the same may be quashed.
4. What is the reason? According to the petitioner, the
petitioner has not committed any offence. He further alleges that
much earlier, he had filed the earlier crime, which is also being
investigated by the police. The petitioner is legally permitted to carry
on the business and there is no element of offence of cheating in his
conduct. He had acted honestly and in a straight forward manner.
He was the victim of fraud and not the offender. In these
circumstances, it is prayed that the investigation against the
petitioner may be quashed. Pending crime No.296/06, may be
directed to be investigated properly and effectively.
5. I need only mention that both crimes have to be
investigated properly, efficiently and effectively by the Kanjirapally
police station. The allegations in the two crimes appear to be
interconnected. In the later crime, the passport holder has
complained about the offence of cheating allegedly committed by the
petitioner whereas in the earlier crime, the petitioner has alleged
commission of the same crime by the accused in the earlier crime.
6. It will be presumptuous on the part of the court at this
stage and with the available inputs to take a decision as to which
allegation raised is correct and which is false. If the petitioner was
Crl.M.C.No.3959/06 3
really cheated and was not guilty of any culpable indiscretion, police
after investigation, must report that fact to the court. At any rate, at
this stage I find no reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C to interfere with the investigation in the later crime registered
against the petitioner.
7. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that both crimes deserve to be investigated properly and
effectively. I am satisfied that it need only be directed that the fourth
respondent shall expeditiously complete the investigation in both
crimes. The fifth respondent must effectively supervise the
investigation conducted by the fourth respondent. With the above
observations/directions, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3959/06 4
Crl.M.C.No.3959/06 5
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006