IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.9435 OF 2019
CRIME NO.975/2014 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station ,
Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN):
ANZAR E.,
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE IBRAHIM KUTTY,
NEDUMTHODATH MEKKATHIL HOUSE,
MUKUNDAPURAM.P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA.No.9435 of 2019 2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
———————————————
Bail Application No.9435 of 2019
———————————————–
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2020.
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime
No.975 of 2014 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered
for offences punishable under Sections 417, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant in the case is the
wife of the petitioner.
3. Earlier, on the information given by the de
facto complainant that the petitioner and three others
subjected her to cruelty and assaulted her, a crime was
registered by Chavara Police as Crime No.733 of 2009 under
Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. After the
BA.No.9435 of 2019 3
investigation, the police submitted final report in the case and
the same was taken to file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Karunagapally as C.C.No.3 of 2010. The offences shown
in the final report were the offences punishable under Sections
406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. While so, the petitioner
preferred Crl.M.C No.1312 of 2012 before this court for
quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2010 on the ground
that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the
de facto complainant. An affidavit allegedly sworn to by the de
facto complainant was also produced along with Crl.M.C
No.1312 of 2012. This court allowed Crl.M.C No.1312 of 2012
and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2010.
4. The accusation in the present crime is that the
affidavit filed along with Crl.M.C No.1312 of 2012 by the
petitioner was not one sworn to by the de facto complainant,
but one forged by the petitioner and the other accused in Crime
No.975 of 2014 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam, who are
his lawyers.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
BA.No.9435 of 2019 4
also the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. It is seen that the lawyer of the petitioner who
instituted Crl.M.C No.1312 of 2012 before this court filed an
interlocutory application in the said case immediately after its
disposal, stating that he was engaged in the matter by accused
2 and 3 in the present crime, who were the lawyers of the
petitioner. It was also alleged in the said petition that the said
lawyers of the petitioner introduced a woman as the de facto
complainant to the lawyer, who preferred the interlocutory
application and the affidavit produced in Crl.M.C.No.1312 of
2012 is one sworn to by the said woman. It is also stated in the
said application that it was revealed later that the woman who
has sworn to the affidavit was not the de facto complainant.
7. Placing reliance on the said interlocutory
application, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that he is innocent in the matter and he had no role to play in
the matter of causing the production of the forged affidavit
before this court. It was also contended by the learned counsel
that on the facts disclosed, the offences punishable under
BA.No.9435 of 2019 5
Sections 417, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are not
made out. It was also contended by the learned counsel that
the investigation in the case is over and at any rate, it is not a
case were custodial interrogation is necessary.
8. I have considered the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. True, it is stated in the
application preferred by the counsel for the petitioner in
Crl.M.C No.1312 of 2012 that it is accused 2 and 3 in the
present crime who have introduced to him a lady as the de
facto complainant. But that by itself is not sufficient to hold that
the petitioner had no role at all in the matter of causing
production of a false document in a case instituted by him and
others, especially since he is the beneficiary of the order sought
in the proceedings. Be that as it may, the occurrence alleged is
of a very serious nature affecting the sanctity of the
proceedings of this court and the same cannot, therefore, be
viewed lightly and persons behind such occurrences are to be
brought before law to uphold the majesty of the court. In the
circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention that the
BA.No.9435 of 2019 6
custodial interrogation is not required in a case of this nature.
Even other wise, the power of this court under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is one to be exercised, having
regard to the nature and seriousness of the accusation and not
solely on a consideration whether custodial interrogation is
required.
The application for anticipatory bail, in the
circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
YKB