The court ruled that an FIR registered upon an improper direction contravenes established legal procedures mandated for cognizable offenses.

V.G.ARUN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl.M.C.No.2606 of 2025 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31^st day of July, 2025

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.122 of 2025 registered at the Ernakulam Central Police Station for the offence under Section 92 (a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RPwD Act'). Even though the litigation has a long chequered history, for the purpose of deciding the issue involved, the following facts alone are essential;

The 2^nd respondent (de facto complainant) had worked in M/s.Nasser S Al Hajri and Partners General Trading and General Contracting Company in Kuwait ('the company' for short) as its Works Manager for a period of 14 months. According to the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent resigned from the company citing medical reasons and after returning to India, launched a complaint against petitioners 1 to 3 with the NRI cell of the Kerala Police. In his complaint, the 2^nd respondent alleged that the company owned by the 2^nd petitioner had manipulated records and forged the signatures of employees and thus, made them work in the project without enrolling under the mandatory insurance scheme. While working at the project site of the company, the 2^nd resopondent was diagnosed with a pathological illness/occupational hazard and had to be hospitalised for extended periods. Although 2^nd respondent raised a claim for insurance, it was rejected on the ground that he was not covered under a valid insurance policy.

2. Based on the 2^nd respondent's complaint, a crime was registered and final report submitted stating that the investigation had revealed that the 2^nd respondent was persuaded to work in the company by making him believe that he was covered under an Insurance Scheme. After entering such finding, the case was referred as 'mistake of fact', stating that the police was not able to decide as to the place of occurrence of the offence. Thereupon, the 2^nd respondent preferred a protest complaint and after conducting preliminary enquiry, the Magistrate took cognisance for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the IPC. The order taking cognisance and further proceedings thereon were challenged by the petitioners before this Court. By Annexure A1 order, the Crl.M.Cs. were allowed, the order issuing process to the petitioners set aside and the complaint dismissed. Although Annexure A1 order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the 2^nd respondent, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as per Annexure A2 order and the review petition filed against Annexure A2 met with the same fate.

3. The 2^nd respondent in the meanwhile preferred a complaint before the State Disability Commissioner alleging that the petitioners had filed fabricated documents along with their counter affidavit in the Crl.M.C filed before the High Court and even though the 2^nd respondent requested for copies of those documents, the copies were not furnished immediately. It is also alleged that, since those documents were not made part of the records, the learned Judge who passed Annexure A1 order was kept in the dark as to the forgery committed. In his complaint before the State Disability Commissioner, the 2^nd respondent also alleged that, by furnishing wrong address of the 1^st petitioner, the petitioners deliberately delayed service of notice on them in the Special Leave Petition filed by him before the Supreme Court.

4. Pending his complaint before the State Disability Commissioner, the 2^nd respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.21807 of 2024 alleging delay in considering his complaint. That writ petition was disposed of by directing th