K.JAYA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the first accused in Annexure A2-FIR in Crime No.VC06//2019 VACB SIU-I Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under sec. 13(1)(d) read with sec. 13 (2) and Sec. 120B, 196,465 and 466 IPC.

(2.) The petitioner retired from service as Superintendent of Police, (Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau) on 31/5/2018. One N.S.Suresh, who is the 4th respondent herein and who was a Circle Inspector of Excise, Amaravila, was earlier subjected to vigilance enquiry into allegations of disproportionate asset, by the petitioner in his capacity as the Superintendent of Vigilance. The said Suresh later submitted different complaints against the petitioner herein. He raised 15 specific allegations of misfeasance, act of corruption and misconduct against the petitioner herein in connection with investigations conducted by him . Pursuant to that complaint of Suresh, a preliminary enquiry was conducted as Q.V.48/2016 SIU-I. Poojapura. Among the 15 cases referred in the complaint, the enquiry officer found substance in six allegations. However, it was also noted by the enquiry officer that five among it did not involve in any criminal offence and hence, recommend departmental action. However, allegation No. 15 was found to be substantiated and recommended action against the petitioner. Regarding all other allegations, it was found that there was no substance in them.

(3.) On the basis of the quick verification report produced as Annexure A3, FIR was registered, as mentioned above. The Government granted sanction by order No. Vig./A1/170/2018-Vig.dtd. 29/11/2019 and Investigation is progressing. Contending that the petitioner has been sought to be implicated falsely in a corruption case at the instance of the 4th respondent herein, who had initiated it as a retaliation for having given report against him, and further contending that, no offence is made out, petitioner herein has filed this Crl.M.C. It was contended that allegation against him is baseless and the complaint was laid to tarnish his reputation and also to sabotage his chance of getting IPS, since the petitioner herein was in the zone of consideration for conferring IPS for the period 2016 -2017.