IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/23RD ASWINA, 1946 CRL.MC NO.6975 OF 2022 CRIME NO.7/2022 OF VACB, PALAKKAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

1 ULLAS R, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.SAROJINI, CHILAMBATH(H), KARIPPODE P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678503.

2 PRASAD KUMAR.V, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VEMMARACODE, PALLACHATHANUR P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678571.

3 SUKULA.K, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, VALLAPILTHODI(H), KATAMPAZHI(P.O), PALAKKAD, PIN – 678633.

4 S.K.SUKUMARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, KOTTIYOTTIL(H), CHERAYA P.O., KONGOD, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678631.

BY ADVS.

GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT A.V.INDIRA AKHIL RAJ AKHIL GEORGE LIYA ELZA ALEX RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031.

2 THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, PALAKKAD UNIT, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERUMAKKARA, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD UNIT, PIN – 678001.

*ADDL.R3 M.K. BHAGEERATHAN, S/O.SANKARAGUPTAN, MANNATTIL KIZHAKKUMPURATHU VEEDU, THRIPPALAMUNDU, PARASHERI POST, KONGAD VIA, PALAKKAD.

*ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED 12.01.2023 IN CRL.M.C.No.6975/2022.

BY ADVS.

REKHA.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR A.RAJESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated, this the 15^th day of October, 2024 This is an application to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R in Vigilance Case no.7/2022 of the V.A.C.B, Palakkad unit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senor Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleged demand for bribe in the instant facts was made on 02.06.2022, on which date, the 1^st accused, Village Field Assistant was on paternity leave, as could be seen from Annexure-A4. As regards the 2^nd accused, it was pointed out that he was not a public servant as on the date of demand and he retired as a Village Field Assistant. As regards the 3^rd accused, it was argued that he was a Village Field Assistant attached to a nearby village office and that he has no connection, whatsoever, with the village office, within whose jurisdiction the instant facts occurred. Insofar as the 4^th accused is concerned, she is a Part Time Sweeper attached to the village office concerned, who has no role, whatsoever, in the perpetration of the alleged crime. On such premise, Annexure-A1 F.I.R is sought to be quashed. More importantly, it was pointed out by the petitioner that the instant case has been filed by defacto complainant, who is an accused in more than 25 cases. It was submitted that he was suo moto summoned by this Court, based on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and notice was issued. However, he did not turn up. According to the learned counsel, the defacto complainant's presence has to be ensured before disposing this matter.

4. This application was seriously opposed by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, who would point out that, this is a case, wherein a sum of Rs.50,000/- was demanded by the accused persons and the accused persons were caught red handed, pursuant to a trap laid down by the vigilance team.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is not inclined to allow the instant Crl.M.C. Going by the F.I.R, the demand was made on 02.06.2022 to the effect that the accused persons will be arriving at the spot for measuring the property on 05.06.2022, on which date, the defacto complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The paternity leave of the 1^st accused was from 25.05.2022 to 03.06.2022 going by Annexure-A4. If that be so, the fact that the 1^st accused was on paternity leave as on the date of demand, that is to say, 02.06.2022, is not of much consequence, inasmuch as, the demand was m