VALSALA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petition has been filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), to quash Annexure II F.I.R. registered in Crime No. 954 of 2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station. Petitioner, a post-woman attached to West Othera Post Office, proceeded in the crime, which is now pending investigation, seeks to quash the proceedings thereof. The main thrust of challenge set forth to invoke the inherent powers of this court for quashing Annexure II F.I.R. in the crime is that Annexure I information leading to the registration of the crime does not disclose any offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, adverting to some decisions rendered by the Apex Court viz., State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., 2006 6 SCC 736 strenuously contended that the crime registered for the offence under S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C.") with no whisper of any allegation thereto made out in Annexure I information supplied, is absurd and inherently unworthy of any merit or value, and, as such the criminal proceedings on the basis of Annexure II F.I.R. against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Petitioner, a post-woman, is proceeded on the basis of the allegation that a postal article was mis-delivered by her. Even if that be so, according to the counsel, she is protected by S. 197 of the Code from prosecution and, further, there is a statutory immunity under S. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, exempting the post office and its officers from liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay in delivery of postal articles, is the submission of the counsel, to urge for quashing Annexure II F.I.R.

(2.) The case diary of the crime has been produced by the Public Prosecutor for my perusal.

(3.) Annexure II F.I.R. is seen registered on a communication sent by the Joint Regional Officer, Thiruvalla to the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla over (sic) of a postal article containing a registration certificate of motor vehicle (sic) office. Annexure I is a copy of that communication. Going through the communication Annexure I, it is seen, even previously a communication in the same matter had been sent, but some clarifications were sought for by the police. In fact, Annexure-I communication indicates of the request from the Joint Regional Transport Officer to the police for giving particulars of the clarification required. That communication also makes clear that, to enable the transport authorities to issue a duplicate registration certificate to the owner, an F.I.R. over the missing of postal article with which the original certificate was previously sent is necessary. Annexure II F.I.R. was registered in the circumstances as indicate above. True, S. 154 of the Code contemplates registration of an F.I.R. only where a cognizable offence is disclosed, and not in other cases. However, for practical purposes, and to serve the ends of justice, there may arise situations which demand registration of a crime by the police, even when no cognizable offence is disclosed on the information supplied. Where a person loses his credit card, passport or other valuable document, issuing authority thereof may insist for intimation to be given and registration of a case thereof by the police to enable them to take further steps for issue of a fresh document/card etc., as the case may be. Previously, there was no statutory recognition for registering a crime when a man was reported to be missing, to proceed with enquiry/investigation. This court had occasion to consider that question; and, it has been observed that registration of a crime under the caption "man missing" by the police in such a situation is not only advisable, but has to be done to serve the ends of justice. Similar is the situation in the registration of crime under S. 174 of the Code by the police where information is received that a person has committed suicide or a dead body is found under suspicious circumstance though at that stage no reasonable suspicion of commission of any offence over the death of that person is disclosed as such. So, it cannot be concluded that the police can register a crime only when information received disclose commission of a cognizable offence, and that alone. Annexure II F.I.R. is registered not against the petitioner as such, but naming the accused person as 'postman' of West Othera Post Office. True, Annexure I communication of the Joint Regional Transport Officer does not disclose any material particulars constituting an offence under S. 409 of the I.P.C. over the missing of the postal article, which was the offence included while registering Annexure II F.I.R. Penal offence imputed for registration of the crime is not disclosed by the information supplied is the main challenge canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the criminal proceedings arising from Annexure II F.I.R. That cannot be examined in isolation while exercise of the inherent powers of this court is invited of. That has to be done with reference to the totality of the facts and circumstances presented in the case.