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