The court ruled that challenges to an F.I.R. cannot be recognized at the preliminary stage, as the investigation is ongoing and the final report will determine applicable offences.

O R D E R

Dated this the 25 th day of November, 2024 Petitioner is the 1 st accused in Crime No.5/2019/KLM of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kollam. The petitioner seeks Annexure-A F.I.R. to be quashed, on the premise that the recitals in the F.I.R. are not sufficient to attract the ingredients of the offences charged. The offences alleged are under Section 13 (2), read with (1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Un amended), and also under (2), read with (1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (amended) and under Sections 409 , 420, 477A and 201, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code .

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), on behalf of the respondent. Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence under Section 409 and 420 cannot lie together. It was also pointed out that there is no specific allegation in the F.I.R. so as to attract the offences under Section 477A and also under Section 201 of the Penal Code . The same allegation is canvassed with respect to the offences under the P.C. Act also. It was then pointed out by the learned counsel that this crime was registered as far back as on 2019 and the investigation has not been completed, yet.

4. The above submissions were seriously opposed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).

5. This Court notice that the contentions raised to challenge the F.I.R. cannot be recognized in law, at this stage. The allegation that the offences under Section 409 and 420 cannot lie together is not a matter to be considered at this stage. The investigation is in progress. It is at the time of filing the final report that the Investigating Officer has to choose as to which all offences are actually attracted, based on the materials collected in the investigation. If any offence which is incorporated in the F.I.R. is found to be not attracted, the same has to be deleted. If any offence which has not been incorporated in the F.I.R., but which is found to have been committed, may have to be inserted also. Needless to say that, the Investigating Officer has the power and liberty to do the same. If that be so, the contentions cannot be sustained as a ground to quash the F.I.R. The same is the situation with respect to the allegation that the ingredients of the offences under Section 477A and 201, as also, the offence under the P.C. Act, are not clearly disclosed in the F.I.R. As it is settled, F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia. It denotes the registration of a crime based on the first information received. The question of attracting the ingredients of the offences, etc., has to be gauged at the time of final report. In the circumstances, the said grounds also cannot be recognized to quash the F.I.R.

6. Coming to the delay in completing the investigation, this Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As pointed out, the investigation commenced in the year 2019 and is not yet complete. Learned Public Prosecutor seeks six more months time to complete the investigation, having regard to the voluminous facts which are required to be investigated.

7. Inasmuch as more than four years had elapsed already, this Court is of the view that, it would be reasonable to fix an outer time limit of four months to complete the investigation. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation in Crime no.5/2019/KLM within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8. In other respects, this Criminal