SREEDHARAN, SREENILAYAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is to quash Ext.P1, FIR and Ext.P2, remand application in Crime No. 128 of 2011 of Chavara Police Station for offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Case is that on 23.01.2011 at about 11.30 p.m., the Sub Inspector and party found 2520 litres of spirit in 72 cans and three sintex tanks made to keep spirit, in two rooms. Thereon Ext, P1, FIR was prepared in Crime No. 128 of 2011. The Circle Inspector, Chavara took up investigation of the case on 24.01.2011 and according to the Circle Inspector, he arrested accused 1 and 2 on 27.01.2011. On questioning them the (alleged) involvement of Petitioner was revealed. According to the Circle Inspector it was the Petitioner who played lead role in the installation of sintex tanks for storing spirit. Petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2011. With Ext. P2, remand report he was produced before the learned Magistrate. According to the Petitioner he has been maliciously included in the case by the Circle Inspector as he did not oblige certain demands of the said Officer. It is therefore prayed in this petition that Exts. P1 and P2 to the extent it concerned Petitioner may be quashed and the second Respondent may be directed to conduct a detailed investigation against the third Respondent. Further relief sought is to conduct an investigation regarding involvement of the fifth Respondent in the alleged incident. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner contended that there is no mention of the name of Petitioner in Ext.P1, FIR and that it comes for the first time only in Ext.P2, remand report prepared by the Circle Inspector. It is also submitted by learned Senior Advocate that people of the locality preferred a mass petition (Ext.P4) against conduct of the Circle Inspector. Learned Senior Advocate requested that at any rate investigation may be ordered to be conducted by an Officer senior in rank to the Circle Inspector. Learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayers contended that Petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature as well from the year 2003 onwards and that allegations made against the Circle Inspector are not correct. It is submitted that investigation is proceeding in the correct line and no interference is required.

(2.) The mere fact that name of Petitioner does not find a place in Ext. P1 (FIR) is not a reason why the FIR and subsequent remand report (Ext. P2) are to be quashed. For, even going by Ext. P2 it is when accused 1 and 2 were questioned after their arrest on 27.01.2011 that according to the Circle Inspector the (alleged) involvement of Petitioner was revealed and accordingly Petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2011. Purport and object of the FIR is only to set the law in motion and rest comes in the course of investigation. I do not find reason to quash Exts. P1 and P2.

(3.) Further prayer is a direction to conduct enquiry against the third Respondent. I am not impressed on the material on record to issue any such direction in this case.