ORDER : 1. The prayer in the aforecaptioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed on 06.04.2016, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is as follows:- “.........to quash Annexure A3 FIR in Crime No. 2267/2015 of the Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur.” 2. The challenge made in the aforecaptioned criminal miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed as against the impugned criminal proceedings, on account of Annexure A3-First Information Report (FIR), in Crime No. 2267/2015 of Kannur Town Police Station, which has been registered suo-moto by the said police station on 09.12.2015, in which the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. 3. It appears that, though Annexure A3-FIR has been registered only on 09.12.2015, the police has completed the investigation with lightning speed and has filed Annexure A4- Final Report/Charge Sheet on 10.12.2015, in which the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused for the said offence as per Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. 4. The petitioner would point out that as a matter of fact Annexure A4-Final Report/Charge Sheet, which is dated on 10.12.2015 was never filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, either on 10.12.2015 or on immediately thereafter but has been filed for the first time before the said court only on 26.07.2017, as can be seen from the seal of the Magistrate court. It is only later that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged in Annexure A4-Final Report/Charge Sheet on 09.01.2018, as can be seen from the seal affixed therein, and the case is now said to be pending as Calendar Case, C.C. No. 379/2018, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. 5. The brief of the allegations in Annexure A3-FIR as can be seen from Column No. 12 thereof is as follows: Others Language 6. The said Annexure A3-FIR has been registered suo-moto by the Kannur Town Police authorities, as can be seen from the last page of Annexure A3-FIR (dealing with the contents of the said FIR), which reads as follows: Others Language 7. The said Annexure A3-FIR has been registered suo-moto by the Kannur Town Police authorities, as can be seen from the last page of Annexure A3-FIR (dealing with the contents of the said FIR), which reads as follows: Others Language 7. A reading of Annexure A3-FIR, more particularly, he last page thereof would make it clear that the allegations raised against the petitioner in Annexure A3-FIR is to the effect that earlier at the instance of the petitioner, she had filed Annexure A1-First Information Statement (FIS), which led to the registration of Annexure A1-FIR in Crime No. 523/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station, in which her husband (R1 herein) has been arrayed as the sole accused therein for offence punishable under Section 498A, 406, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). That the petitioner as the de-facto complainant in Annexure A1 had given a statement before the Civil Police Officer concerned, SPCO 4972, on 04.04.2014, raising the allegations in Annexure A1-FIS as against her husband. Further, the case is that later, the police conducted investigation in Annexure A1-FIR in which the petitioner herein is the defacto complainant and her husband (R1) herein is the accused and that the police had allegedly found that the allegations are false and accordingly submitted Annexure A1-refer report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, in respect of the said Annexure A1 Crime No. 523/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station. The further case of the police in Annexure A4-Final Report/Charge Sheet in the present impugned criminal proceedings is that the petitioner herein as de-facto complainant had given false statement to the Police by way of FIS, which led to the registration of Annexure A1-FIR and that the said false statement was given by the petitioner/de-facto complainant in Annexure A1-FIR only to mislead the police, and to take action against her husband, who had earlier given a complaint to the police, which was treated as an FIS and also led to the registration of Crime No. 88/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station, in which the 2nd respondent herein (husband) is the defacto complainant and the petitioner herein has been arrayed as one among the accused therein for the offences punishable under Secs.120B, 406 & 420, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case of the police in Annexure A3-FIS and Annexure A4-Final Report/Charge Sheet is that the petitioner had given the false FIS in Annexure A1-FIR as against her husband, presumably as a counterblast against the action of her husband in having given FIS, which led to the registration of crime No. 88/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station in which he is the de-facto complainant and the petitioner is an accused person therein for the abovesaid offences punishable under Secs.120 B, 406 and 420, read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is on this confabulated basis that the police would allege that the petitioner has allegedly committed the offence as per Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. 8. Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 reads as follows:- “117. Penalty for interfering in the functions of the police. Whoever: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) deliberately makes a false statement to a police officer with intent to mislead the police in material particulars in a police investigation or due performance of police duty. (e) on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.” 9. So the basic ingredient to be satisfied for disclosing an offence as per Section 117(d) of the IPC is that the prosecution should have a definite case that the accused person should have deliberately made a false statement to a police officer, and further should have deliberately made a false statement to the police officer knowing fully well that the said statement is false and that it should be coupled with the ingredient that the accused should necessarily have the intention to mislead the police in material particulars in a police investigation or due performance of police duty. 10. A reading of Annexure A1-FIR and Annexure A4-Final Report/Charge-Sheet in the case in which the petitioner herein is the de-facto complainant and the 1st respondent herein (husband) is the accused for the offences including the one as per Section 498A of the IPC would show that the gist of the allegations in Annexure A1-FIS, as reflected in Column No. 12 thereof is as follows: Others Language 11. Further, a reading of Annexure-A1 materials would show that the Final Report/Charge Sheet in that case in which the petitioner herein is the de-facto complainant, said to have been filed by the Police on 09.12.2015 and it is manifestly clear from a reading of 1st page of Annexure-A1 (i.e. see page 6 of the paper book of the criminal miscellaneous case) that the said refer report has been un-served on the petitioner, of course the police has got a case that the said Final Report at Annexure-A1 is referring Annexure-A1-FIR in crime No. 523/2014 as false. 12. Further, a reading of Annexure-A3 would make it clear that the petitioner's husband viz. the 1st respondent herein had filed an FIS before the police authorities concerned which led to the registration of Crime No. 88/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station, in which the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the accused therein for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, etc. A reading of Annexure-A3 FIR and Annexure-A4 Final Report does not make it clear that as to what exactly is the case of the police against the petitioner, that is as to whether the intention attributed to the petitioner was to mislead the police either in Annexure-A1 Crime No. 523/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station or to mislead the police in relation to Crime No. 88/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station. The Police does not have any specific case in that regard as to what exactly was the purported intention of the petitioner, especially as to in which case the petitioner had allegedly sought to mislead the police. But that by itself may not necessarily complete the consideration of these matters inasmuch as Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act has an alternate limb in its ingredients inasmuch as the ingredients may otherwise lie if the prosecution has got a case that the said false statement has been deliberately given to the police officer with intend to mislead the police in the due performance of the police duty. 13. 13. Therefore, even if the police does not have a specific case as to which is the case in which the accused had sought to mislead the police, if the prosecution can have a case that the abovesaid action of the accused is to mislead the police in due performance of his police duty, still the ingredients could be made out. But that could happen only if the prosecution has a specific case that the accused has deliberately made a false statement to a police officer, knowing fully well that the statement is false. 14. Merely because the de-facto complainant has given an FIS, which led to the registration of a case as in Annexure-A1 Crime No. 523/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station in which the petitioner herein is the de-facto complainant and her husband (R1 herein) is the accused therein, and merely because the police ultimately files a refer report saying that the allegations raised in the FIR are false, by itself will not fulfill the ingredients of Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act. That apart, even for the alternate limb of Section 117(d), the police should have a definite case, as to in which case, the accused had intended to mislead them in the due performance of their duties. This aspect is lacking, as already aforestated. 15. The police should have cogent and precised materials to make out a specific case that not only the accused has deliberately made a false statement to a police officer but that he/she has made such a false statement deliberately and that too knowing fully well that the statement is false. Such a case is conspicuously absent from an overall and total reading of the impugned criminal materials at Annexure-A3 and Annexure-A4. It happens in so many cases that a crime may be registered on the basis of an FIS given by a de-facto complainant or a first informant and ultimately after the course of its investigation, the police may complete the investigation and file a final report stating that the allegations in the FIR are false or may refer the case for other valid reasons. Merely because police takes the view that the allegations raised therein are false, does not necessarily mean that the first informant of the de-facto complainant has made the First Information Statement or any other statement deliberately and knowing fully well that the statement is false. Merely because police takes the view that the allegations raised therein are false, does not necessarily mean that the first informant of the de-facto complainant has made the First Information Statement or any other statement deliberately and knowing fully well that the statement is false. 16. The prosecution will have to make a very strong case that the accused has made such a false statement to a police officer, deliberately and knowing fully well his false and it should be with the intention to mislead the material particulars in a police investigation or with the intention to mislead the police in the due performance of police duty, etc. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the necessary ingredients for disclosing the offence as per Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 are conspicuously absent in this case. 17. There is yet another very important dimension in this case. A reading of Annexure-A1 would make it clear like the daylight that the said refer report has been filed by the police before the learned Magistrate without serving notice thereof on the petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant therein. There cannot be any difficulty for the police to have served the notice in respect of Annexure-A1 refer report to the petitioner herein, as her whereabouts are very much known to the police. The police has no case that the petitioner was then unavailable in the locality. It is not known as to why the police has not served Annexure-A1 refer report to the petitioner. It is by now well established that it is the duty of the investigating officer to serve a copy of the Final Report to the de-facto complainant in a case where the Final Report is a refer report. This is to enable the de-facto complainant to appear before the learned Magistrate and contend that the refer report shall not be accepted and the de-facto complainant will be at liberty on the basis of cogent materials to plead and convince the learned Magistrate either to reject the refer report or to take cognizance of the offence based on the existing materials or to order for further investigation in the case. 18. 18. If the notice on the refer report had been duly served on the petitioner (de-facto complainant therein) certainly, she could have endeavoured to that course of action which has been blatantly denied by the police, it is not known as to why the police has so arbitrarily refused to serve notice of the refer report to the petitioner. 19. That apart, it has to be borne in mind that the relationship between the petitioner and her husband (1st respondent) was extremely far from rosy and on the other hand the matrimonial disputes between them was indeed a “battle” between the spouses. The husband (1st respondent) had initially given FIS which led to the registration of crime No. 88/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station. Later, the petitioner has given FIS which led to the registration of Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 523/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station. 20. Annexure-A1 refer report in Crime No. 523/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station was filed on 09.12.2015. It also appears that the police has no case that the learned Magistrate has passed judicial order accepting the so called refer report. It is on the same day (09.12.2015) that the police has very hastily gone forward to get register Annexure-A3 FIR in Crime No. 523/2014 of the same police station and that too, not on the basis of a complaint of first information of a aggrieved person like the 1st respondent but suo-moto by the police authorities concerned. This crucial aspect has to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the police has not even cared to serve a copy of Annexure-A1 refer report to the petitioner on the other hand without serving copy of Annexure-A1 refer report to the petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant therein, the police has not only filed Annexure-A1-refer report on 09.12.2015 and has also very hastily got registered the impugned Annexure-A3 FIR on the same day, i.e. on 09.12.2015, stating that the petitioner has committed the offence as per Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, merely because police has taken the view that the allegations raised by her in her FIS as against her husband are found to be false. 21. True, that they have power to register FIR suo-moto so long as it is for a cognizable offence. 21. True, that they have power to register FIR suo-moto so long as it is for a cognizable offence. Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act is a cognizable offence going by the mandate of Section 125 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. But that does not mean that in a case like this, where allegations and counter allegations are made by warring spouses, the police should immediately act as the saviour of one of the spouses and come to the conclusion that the wife has committed the offence as per Section 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, merely because police has found that the allegations in the crime which was registered on the basis of FIS are found to be false and that too without serving copy of the refer report to that party. 22. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the very initiation and finalisation of the impugned criminal proceedings at Annexure-A3 and Annexure-A4 is rather unreasonable, arbitrary and improper to say the least. 23. The story does not end there. The impugned Annexure-A3 FIR is registered on 09.12.2015. According to the police, they had hastily completed the entire investigation thereof and has filed Annexure-A4 Final Report/Charge Sheet on the next day, viz. 10.12.2015. But for reasons not known to this Court, the said Final Report/Charge Sheet actually reached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court not on 09.12.2015 but long thereafter, i.e. only on 26.07.2017, as can be seen from the seal of the court in the said Final Report. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance certainly much thereafter on 09.01.2018, which led to the institution of Calendar Case, C.C. No. 379/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. 24. It is not known as to how the police could have conducted and completed a fair investigation within the lightning speed of 24 hours, in a case like this. Obviously, no materials have been collected by the Police even come to a prima-facie conclusion that the allegations in Annexure-A1 FIS has been made by the police is not only a false statement but that it has made by the petitioner deliberately, knowing fully well that it is a false statement. 25. Obviously, no materials have been collected by the Police even come to a prima-facie conclusion that the allegations in Annexure-A1 FIS has been made by the police is not only a false statement but that it has made by the petitioner deliberately, knowing fully well that it is a false statement. 25. The degree of proof to satisfy the said requirement that the statement is not only false, but has been made deliberately, knowing fully well that it is false, is indeed but substantial and significant. How, the police has reached the conclusion within about 24 hrs. of the filing of the refer report in Annexre-A1 to file Annexre-A4 Final Report/Charge Sheet against the petitioner, is indeed baffling, to say the least. 26. Going by the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the very initiation and continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings at Annexure A3 and A-4 is a grave abuse of the process of the court and therefore, the matter would require interdiction in the hands of this Court in exercise of the inherent extraordinary powers of this Court saved and preserved in terms of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 27. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-A4 Final Report/Charge Sheet, filed in Annexure-A3 Crime No. 2267/2015 of Kannur Town Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C. No. 379/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, as against the petitioner/accused and all further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioner/accused will stand quashed and set aside. 28. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, for necessary information. 29. With these observations and directions, the above criminal miscellaneous case will stand finally disposed of.