Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6570 OF 2021
CRIME NO.5/2021 OF VACB, THRISSUR, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SREEPRAKASH.B.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VENATTU HOUSE,
KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 103.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
S.K.SAJU
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR
620 680.
OTHER PRESENT:
RAJESH A SPL GP VIG..REKHA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6575/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6575 OF 2021
CRIME NO.06/2021 OF VACB, THRISSUR, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SREEPRAKASH. B.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VENATTU HOUSE,
KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
S.K.SAJU
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR
620 680.
RAJESH A SPL GP VIG..REKHA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.03.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6570/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K. BABU, J
-------------------------------------------------
Crl M.C. Nos. 6570 & 6575 of 2021
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2024
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH THOMAS
P.KURUVILLA
S.K.SAJU
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and cautiously, only in the rarest of cases, and the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR is a matter to be tested during the course of investigation.
Headnote:
Corruption - Vehicle Registration - The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash FIRs 5/2021 and 6/2021, alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The allegations involved dishonest alteration of vehicle specifications and accepting bribes for approving the alterations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Joint Regional Transport Officer, sought to quash FIRs 5/2021 and 6/2021, alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The allegations involved dishonest alteration of vehicle specifications and accepting bribes for approving the alterations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIRs disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged. It held that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations would be tested during the course of investigation, and it lacked jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the allegations at that stage.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged dishonest alteration of vehicle specifications and acceptance of bribes by the petitioner, as well as the jurisdiction of the court to quash the FIRs at that stage of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that the High Court should not interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution, and that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and cautiously, only in the rarest of cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash the FIRs, stating that the allegations in the FIRs disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged, and that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations would be tested during the course of investigation.
ORDER
The petitioner, a former Joint Regional Transport Officer is accused No.1 in FIR Nos. 5 of 2021 and 6 of 2021 of VACB, Thrissur. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 7(b) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.5/2021 and Sections 7(b) and 8(i) (ii) of the PC Act r/w Section 34 of the IPC in FIR No.6/2021. He seeks to quash FIR No.5/2021 in Crl M.C.No.6570 of 2021 and FIR No.6/2021 in Crl.M.C.No. 6575 of 2021.
2. Since the allegations in both the crimes are of the similar nature and the grounds urged are common, these Crl.M.Cs are analogously disposed of.
3. Prosecution case in FIR No.5/2021:-
The petitioner while officiating as Joint Regional Transport Offier of Thrissur RTO dishonsestly issued the Registration Certificates of 32 prototype “open vehicles” altering the specifications cited in Sale Certificates (Form No.21), to “closed vehicles” violating Section 52(1) of the MV Act, the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and Circular No.11036/06/2019 MVL dated 28/2/2019 by accepting bribe from Accused No.2, Tenny C.L. in between 25.04.2019 and 30.04.2019. The alteration of the vehicles was approved by the petitioner who was the registering authority even without collecting the fee for the alteration of the vehicles.
4. Prosecution case in FIR No.6/2021:-
The petitioner while officiating as Joint Regional Transport Offier of Thrissur RTO dishonsestly issued the registration certificates of 25 prototype “open vehicles” altering the specifications cited in Sale Certificates (Form Number-21), to “closed vehicles” violating Section 52(1) of the MV Act, the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and Circular No.11036/06/2019 MVL dated 28/2/2019, by accepting bribe from Accused No.2, Sudhin C.M. through Sijith @ Kuttayi and Thomas in between 17.08.2019 and 18.12.2019. The alteration of the vehicles was approved by the petitioner who was the registering authority even without collecting the fee for the alteration of the vehicles.
5. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner dishonestly issued Registration Certificate to 57 vehicles with prototype “open vehicle” altering the specifications cited in Form No.21 to “closed vehicle” after obtaining bribe from the owners of the vehicles in violation of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the directions of the Supreme Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and the circulars issued by the competent authority in this regard.
6. In FIR No.5/2021, the prosecution specifically alleges that the petitioner obtained bribe from Sri. Tenny C.L. (Accused No.2) and the alteration was approved by him without even collecting the fee for alteration of the vehicles. In FIR No.6/2021, the prosecution alleges that he received bribe from Sri. Sudhin C.M. and approved alteration without collecting fee for alteration of the vehicles.
7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S. Sreekumar and the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) Sri.A. Rajesh.
8. The learned Senior Counsel made the following submissions:-
(1)The vehicles were used as Cash Van for the purpose of transporting cash for bank and other financial institutions. There is no approved ‘prototype’ for such vehicles. The only option available to the customers is to convert the commercial vehicles to Cash Van in accordance with the specifications stipulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
(2).There are only few manufacturers producing the vehicles adhering to the stipulations issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. In order to accommodate five passengers, the vehicle must have dual cab.
(3)The ratio in Jayachandran’s case is not applicable to the present facts, as there is no material alteration leading to structural changes of the vehicles.
9. The learned Special Government Pleader made the f
