Court Should Not Go Into 'Correctness' Of Prosecution Materials In A Petition To Quash Criminal Proceedings: Kerala High Court

Justice K. Babu observed:

“It is settled by a long course of decisions of the Apex Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has been further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.”

The Court held that to quash the proceedings, the accused should be able to show that the allegations against him do not constitute the offence alleged.

The petitioner is an Assistant Vehicle Inspector in RTO Office, Payyanur. He allegedly asked the complainant, an auto consultant Rs.6,000 as bribe to issue fitness certificate to 2 vehicles. He was asked to give this money to the proprietor of a driving school. The complainant approached a Vigilance Officer. As per their plan, he gave the money to an employee in the driving school who in turn gave it to the petitioner. The petitioner and the driving school worker was subjected to phenolphthalein test and the test turned positive. The worker at driving school told the police that the money was handed over to another person on the instructions of the petitioner. Vigilance Officer recovered that money. The serial number of the currency notes matched with those mentioned in the pre-trap mahazar.

The petitioner argued that the case would not stand as the prosecution had prima facie failed to establish demand. No money was recovered from his possession. Further, the fitness certificate was uploaded on the day the complainant approached the petitioner. Therefore, there was no requirement of giving the money.

The prosecution said that though the copy was uploaded, the petitioner downloaded it and kept it with him and refused to give the original of the Fitness Certificate. Furthermore, even if there was not any persuasion, it will still be considered as an 'unfair advantage' and comes under the offence of 'bribe'.

The case was dismissed saying that Court cannot go into the correctness of the Final Report at this point.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates I. V. Pramod, Amrutha Diwakar, Saira Souraj P. Resmi Sajeevan, Megha G.

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Vigilance Adv. A. Rajesh, Senior Public Prosecutor Adv. S. Rekha

Case No: Crl.M.C. No: 1719/ 2024

Case Title: Prasad P. V. v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 428