Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1369 (KER)

K. R. Haridas v. Dy. S. P. (VACB)

2024-10-24

K.BABU

body2024
JUDGMENT : The prayers in the Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:- (i) to call for the records relating to No.9/2020 (VC 5/2017/KNR) on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thalassery and after hearing the petitioner and the respondents orders may be passed quashing all proceedings as against the petitioner initiated in pursuance of Exhibit P2 Final Report by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Hon’ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (ii) Granting such other interim reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice; 2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.9 of 2020 (VC 5/2017/KNR) on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassry. The petitioner and the other accused face charges under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is as follows:- 3.1 The petitioner was the Head of the Department of Chemistry at the SAT Campus, Kannur University. Accused No.2 was the Head of the Department of Physics. Accused No.2 sought permission from the Vice Chancellor to appoint a Professional Assistant in the Department of Physics. The University permitted Accused No.2 to appoint a Professional Assistant on a Daily Wage basis. One Sajith Kumar K. (CW 15) was employed as a Professional Assistant in the Chemistry Department. Accused No.2 obtained a copy of the educational qualification of one Vinod Kumar.D (CW14) and fraudulently added the address of the family house of CW15 and made records to the effect that the Department appointed Shri. Vinod Kumar D. as Professional Assistant in the Department of Physics on 18.08.2008. Accused No.2 misappropriated the salary of the Professional Assistant, stating that the same was disbursed to Shri Vinod Kumar D. Accused No.2 availed leave to attend an orientation programme from 10.10.2008 to 06.11.2008. The petitioner was given charge of the Department of Physics when accused No.2 was on leave. 3.2. The petitioner, while officiating as the Head of the Department of Physics, made documents showing that Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was transferred to the Department of Chemistry, knowing that appointment in the name of Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was fraudulently made by accused No.2. 3.2. The petitioner, while officiating as the Head of the Department of Physics, made documents showing that Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was transferred to the Department of Chemistry, knowing that appointment in the name of Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was fraudulently made by accused No.2. He also created documents showing that since October 2008 to June 2011 Shri.Vinod Kumar D. worked as a Professional Assistant and received a sum of Rs.1,84,450/- from the University. 3.3. The petitioner and the other accused dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the funds of the University and obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means by abusing their official position, thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The Crime was registered based on a complaint filed by one P.Surendran, a staff of the University. The VACB conducted investigation and submitted the Final Report before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. The petitioner challenges the final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2020 (VC 5/2017/KNR). 5. I have heard Shri.T. Asaf Ali, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:- There is no material to show that the petitioner appointed a person by name Vinod Kumar D. Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was appointed as a Professional Assistant in the Department of Physics by Dr. N.K. Deepak (Accused No.2) who was the head of the Department of Physics. There is no prima facie material to show that there was forgery of any documents. The allegedly forged documents were not sent to expert opinion. No forged documents were seized at all. The acquittance register seized by the Police during the investigation would show that Vinod Kumar had worked in the Physics Department and that he was appointed by Dr M.K. Deepak. 7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted the following:- There are materials to show that forgery was committed by the petitioner and the other accused. No person named Vinod Kumar D. was actually engaged in the University, but salary was received in his name. 7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted the following:- There are materials to show that forgery was committed by the petitioner and the other accused. No person named Vinod Kumar D. was actually engaged in the University, but salary was received in his name. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the Investigating Officer intends to conduct a further investigation based on the information that fake and forged documents had been submitted to the University by the accused. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings, the High Court would have to proceed entirely based on the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations 8. The VACB submitted the Final Report alleging the following:- (1) The petitioner was employed as the Head of the Department of Chemistry, SAT Campus, Kannur University. (2) Accused No.2 was the Head of the Physics Department. (3) On 26.08.2008, Accused No.2 submitted a request to the Vice Chancellor of the University seeking permission to appoint a Professional Assistant in the Department of Physics. The University accorded permission to appoint a Professional Assistant. One Sajith Kumar (CW15) was then employed as a Professional Assistant in the Chemistry Department. Accused No.2, with the help of Sajith Kumar, obtained a qualifying Certificate for BLISc Course issued in the name of one Vinod Kumar D. (CW15) and created documents to make the impression that he appointed Shri. Vinod Kumar D. as Professional Assistant on Daily Wages in the Department of Physics. (4) The University disbursed salary in the name of Shri Vinod Kumar D. on the basis of the recommendation of Accused No.2. Accused No.2 received salary in the name of Shri. Vinod Kumar D. and used for his own purpose. Accused No.2 went on leave to attend an orientation course from 10.10.2008 to 06.11.2008. During the period in which accused No.2 was on leave, the petitioner was given the charge of the Physics Department. Accused No.2 received salary in the name of Shri. Vinod Kumar D. and used for his own purpose. Accused No.2 went on leave to attend an orientation course from 10.10.2008 to 06.11.2008. During the period in which accused No.2 was on leave, the petitioner was given the charge of the Physics Department. While he was in charge of the Physics Department after fully aware of the misappropriation and fraudulent acts done by Accused No.2, the petitioner created documents to the effect that the person named Vinod Kumar was transferred as Professional Assistant in the Department of Chemistry. Salary was disbursed in the name of Shri. Vinod Kumar D. from October 2008 to June 2011. No person named Vinod Kumar worked at the University. The entire funds disbursed by the University as salary in the name of Vinod Kumar were misappropriated by the petitioner and the other accused. 9. Admittedly, accused No.2 made the appointment in the name of Shri. Vinod Kumar D., which is more evident from Ext.P5. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner had any role in the initial appointment of Shri. Vinod Kumar on 08.08.2008. The only allegation of the prosecution against the petitioner is that when he was in charge of the Department of Physics, at a time when Accused No.2 was on leave, he created documents showing that Shri. Vinod Kumar was transferred to the Department of Chemistry. 10. Based on the allegations of forgery, misappropriation, etc., the University appointed a Committee consisting of Dr. John Joseph, Dr. M.J. Mathew and Dr. B.V. Lasitha to enquire into the matter. The Committee recorded the following findings:- “As per the letter No.AD.A4/3521/2008 dtd 10.06.2008, the Registrar, Kannur University, issued sanction to the HOD Department of Chemistry to engage a professional assistant in the Department. Accordingly Sajith Kumar joined the department on 16.06.2008. As per the records of Department of Physics, Mr. Vinod Kumar D. had been appointed as the Professional Assistant there on 03.10.2008. The Heads of Departments of Physics and Chemistry have averred that with the approval of the University, the services of Sri. Vinod Kumar and Sri.Sajith Kumar were interchanged. As per U.O.No.AD.D3/3521/2008 dtd 15.11.2008, University has approved the engagement of 117 daily wage staff at various departments and sanctioned their wages. Vinod Kumar D. is included as No.102 in this list. The Heads of Departments of Physics and Chemistry have averred that with the approval of the University, the services of Sri. Vinod Kumar and Sri.Sajith Kumar were interchanged. As per U.O.No.AD.D3/3521/2008 dtd 15.11.2008, University has approved the engagement of 117 daily wage staff at various departments and sanctioned their wages. Vinod Kumar D. is included as No.102 in this list. According to the Erratum No.AD.D3/3521/2008 dtd 26.11.2008, issued by the Registrar, Kannur University in reply to Letter No.KU/SCS/Cont.Employee/06/dtd 20.11.2008, from the HOD, School of Chemical Sciences, the designation of Sri. Vinod Kumar D, serial No 102 in the UO of even no. AD.D3/3521/2008 dtd 15.11.2008 is to be corrected as Professional Assistant. The sheet rolls of labourers employed on daily wage basis at School of Chemical Sciences submitted to the University every month during the relevant period includes the name of Vinod Kumar D. These rolls have been approved by University and wages have been sanctioned. The commission, after hearing the department heads and the office staff has come to the conclusion that the sheet rolls were approved by the University. Subsequently the cheque was issued to the Head of the Departments. However the salary was disbursed by the University office at Payyannur Campus. The month-wise acquittance register was maintained in the department. From the above documents it is evident that a person named Vinod Kumar D has been engaged in the Dept of Chemistry and salary was disbursed to him every month. Hence the question of misappropriation of fund does not arise. The university has not accrued any financial loss on this account. Regarding the second and third allegations it is pertinent to examine the statement rendered by the complainant Mr. Surendran before the Committee. Mr.Surendran in his written complaint submitted to the University had categorically sated that Dr.K.R.Haridas had committed forgery and misappropriated the salary that was to be disbursed to a Vinod Kumar. However the enquiry committee was surprised by his stand in the hearing. He said he was not sure whether Dr K R Haridas had forged the signature of Sri Vinod. He did not know who signed the acquittance roll and claimed the salary due to Vinod Kumar. He is not sure that Vinod Kumar’s salary had been claimed simultaneously from Physics and Chemistry departments. He does not know whether somebody else worked as Professional Assistant during the period. He did not know who signed the acquittance roll and claimed the salary due to Vinod Kumar. He is not sure that Vinod Kumar’s salary had been claimed simultaneously from Physics and Chemistry departments. He does not know whether somebody else worked as Professional Assistant during the period. However Vinod Kumar’s certificate had been used in the department. He produced the application for BLISC Course of Vinod Kumar bearing the signature of Vinod Kumar to substantiate his claim that it was not the same as the one in the acquittance rolls. The enquiry committee cannot verify or discover the identity of a person solely on the basis of a signature. Moreover the signatures on the acquittance and sheet rolls are not full signatures. Hence a comparison is not possible between the signatures on the sheet/acquittance rolls and the signature on the BLISC course application. The Complainant himself informed the Committee that he had no other documents to substantiate his allegations (copy of the signed statement of the complainant is attached herewith). The committee also looked into the allegations subsequently raised by Mr. Surendran against Dr. Deepak, HOD of Physics but the Committee is convinced that the allegations are baseless. In the light of the comprehensive and exhaustive evidence cited above the Committee comes to the conclusion that Dr.K.R.Haridas has not misappropriated university funds or manipulated office records.” 11. After recording the above findings, the Committee further concluded that there are administrative lapses on the part of Dr. K.R. Haridas, the petitioner, and action be taken against him regarding the administrative lapse. Smt. B.V.Lasitha, (CW 10), a member of the Enquiry Committee, deposed before the Vigilance that a person by the name of Shri. Vinod Kumar had received salary from the department and that the petitioner had not committed any misappropriation. Smt. Lasitha further stated Shri.N.K. Deepak appointed Shri. Vinod Kumar D.. Shri.M.J. Mathew (CW11) also stated that going by the acquittance register, a person by the name of Vinod Kumar D. worked as a Professional Assistant, received salary and that Shri. N.K. Deepak appointed him. 12. The principal allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner committed forgery. The definition of forgery is contained in Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC. It is useful to extract Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC.< “463. 12. The principal allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner committed forgery. The definition of forgery is contained in Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC. It is useful to extract Sections 463 and 464 of the IPC.< “463. Forgery.-Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” 464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently-- (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature]on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration” 13. The definition of false document is a part of the definition of forgery. Both definitions are interlinked to form the offence. On a reading of the ingredients of the offence of forgery, the following are essential. The definition of false document is a part of the definition of forgery. Both definitions are interlinked to form the offence. On a reading of the ingredients of the offence of forgery, the following are essential. (1) Fraudulently signing a document or part of a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was signed by another or under his authority. (2) making such document with the intention to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. 14. The prosecution has produced no materials to show that the petitioner has fraudulently signed a document or a part of a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was signed by another or under due authority The petitioner relied on Ext.P5 to establish that it was Accused No.2 who appointed Sri. Vinod Kumar. There is nothing to show that the petitioner has any nexus with the alleged appointment of Shri. Vinod Kumar D.. The Investigating Agency has not taken steps to establish that the petitioner committed forgery of any documents. 15. I am fully conscious of the nature of the power vested in the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash the criminal proceedings at the stage of issuing process or framing charges. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly at the stages of issuing process or committal or framing charges as it would have far-reaching consequences in inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s case without allowing the prosecution to lead evidence. Such a course is to be taken with caution, care and circumspection. When a prayer for quashing the FIR or Final Report is made by the accused, the Court, when it exercises the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR and Final Report disclose the commission of the offences alleged or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence. At that stage, the Court is only required to consider the records of the case and documents to satisfy that there is ground for proceeding against the accused. [vide: State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha [ (1982) 1 SCC 561 ], Pratibha Rani V. Suraj Kumar [ (1985) 2 SCC 370 ], State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [ (1996) 7 SCC 705 , State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan [ (1999) 2 SCC 651 ], Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [ (2010) 9 SCC 368 ], State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr Anup Kumar Srivastava [AIR 2017 SCC 3698], Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another [ (2012) 9 SCC 460 ], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi [ (2009) 15 SCC 533 ] M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra and others ( AIR 2021 SC 1918 ).] 16. However, if the High Court is fully satisfied that the materials produced by the accused are such that would lead to the conclusion that his defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts, or the same would rule out or displace the assertions in the complaint or the materials relied on by the accused would reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and to quash such criminal proceedings to avoid or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice. 17. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the High Court is guided by the following two objectives: (i) Prevent the abuse of the process of the court. (ii) Secure the ends of justice. 18. In Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor [ (2013) 3 SCC 330 )], the Apex Court delineated the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.:- "Step one: Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable ie. the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused ie. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint ie. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) especially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." 19. The principles enumerated in Rajiv Thapar (Supra) are reiterated by the Supreme Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2013) 9 SCC 293 ]. 20. I shall now consider whether the parameters as suggested by the Apex Court have been satisfied in the present case. 21. In the prosecution evidence, there is nothing to show that the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the funds of the University. The Internal Enquriy Committee has come to the conclusion that Vinod Kumar D. was appointed by Accused No.2 and that the acquittance register and the relevant materials would show that a person named Vinod Kumar received salary. It is also pertinent to note that the Enquiry Committee has recorded a finding that, on some occasions, Shri. Vinod Kumar engaged a substitute during his absence, and he himself received salary from the University. 22. Ext.P5 shows that a person named Vinod Kumar D. was appointed by Dr. N.K. Deepak (Accused No.2). The prosecution has no case that the petitioner had knowledge regarding the appointment of Shri. Vinod Kumar. 23. 22. Ext.P5 shows that a person named Vinod Kumar D. was appointed by Dr. N.K. Deepak (Accused No.2). The prosecution has no case that the petitioner had knowledge regarding the appointment of Shri. Vinod Kumar. 23. The specific case of the prosecution is that during the period from 10.10.2008 to 06.11.2008 while the petitioner was in charge of the Physics Department Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was transferred to the Chemistry Department, the head of which is the petitioner. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner had knowledge regarding the misappropriation and fraudulent acts allegedly done by accused No.2 in the appointment of the person named Vinod Kumar D. It is the case of the prosecution that after having known that by way of a fraudulent act accused No.2 made the appointment of Shri. Vinod Kumar D, the petitioner, created a document to the effect that the said person was transferred to the Chemistry Department. 24. The prosecution has placed no material so far to prima facie establish that the petitioner had any knowledge or information regarding any irregularities in the appointment of a person named Shri. Vinod Kumar D. It may be true that while holding charge of the Physics Department, the petitioner might have issued proceedings to the effect that the person appointed by accused No.2 was transferred to the Chemistry Department. At the most, the prosecution may allege administrative lapses or procedural irregularity in the alleged transfer as found by the Committee appointed by the University to enquire into the matter. The prosecution failed to produce any material to show the dishonest intention of the petitioner in any of the acts allegedly committed by him. The mens rea of the petitioner is a sine qua non to attract the offences alleged against him. 25. Dishonest intention is the crux of the offences alleged against him, which the prosecution failed to establish. The prosecution had not produced any material to prove the association of the petitioner with the other accused in any of the acts. 26. The learned Special Government Pleader highlighted that the investigating agency intends to collect materials from the University to show that fake and forged documents were created. The crime was registered in 2017. The major allegation levelled against the petitioner is based on forgery by way of making false documents. Seven years have elapsed after the registration of the crime. 26. The learned Special Government Pleader highlighted that the investigating agency intends to collect materials from the University to show that fake and forged documents were created. The crime was registered in 2017. The major allegation levelled against the petitioner is based on forgery by way of making false documents. Seven years have elapsed after the registration of the crime. The prosecution submitted the Final Report after completing the investigation on 02.11.2020. Is there any bona fides in the submission of the Investigating officer that he intends to collect materials to prove forgery and falsification of documents? At this juncture, it is profitable to refer to the observation of this Court in Greik Xavier v. Sub Inspector of Police, Angamaly {[ 2023(5) KHC 455 ]: [ 2023 (5) KLT 225 ]}, which is extracted below:- “9. Speedy investigations and trial are mandated by the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Code and the constitutional protection enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. The Honourable Apex Court had observed that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law; that such procedure is not some semblance of a procedure, but the procedure should be 'reasonable, fair and just'; and therefrom flows, without doubt, the right to speedy trial. It was also observed that no procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. The Apex Court clarified that speedy trial means reasonably expeditious trial which is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 (See Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another [ (1978) 1 SCC 248 ], Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [ (1980) 1 SCC 81 ]. 11. In Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others v. R.S.Nayak and Another [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 ] the Honourable Apex Court again considered the exposition of Article 21 of the Constitution and formulated a comprehensive set of propositions, meant to serve as guidelines, upholding the right to speedy and public trial a constitutional guarantee. 11. In Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others v. R.S.Nayak and Another [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 ] the Honourable Apex Court again considered the exposition of Article 21 of the Constitution and formulated a comprehensive set of propositions, meant to serve as guidelines, upholding the right to speedy and public trial a constitutional guarantee. Those propositions include the following: (i) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily; (ii) Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial; (iii) In every case where the speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the first question to be put and answered is - who is responsible for the delay?; (iv) While determining whether undue delay has occurred (resulting in violation of right to speedy trial) one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the work-load of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on - what is called, the systemic delays; (v) Ultimately, the court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors - 'balancing test' or 'balancing process'- and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied; 12. The mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21 [Vide: P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 2002 SC 1856 )]. 27. As of now, the prosecution has not produced any credible materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences. At the most, the prosecution could place some material to create ‘mere suspicion’ regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. To proceed against the petitioner by framing charges, the prosecution has to place materials that give rise to a ‘grave suspicion’. At the most, the prosecution could place some material to create ‘mere suspicion’ regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. To proceed against the petitioner by framing charges, the prosecution has to place materials that give rise to a ‘grave suspicion’. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in State, by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. S. Selvi and another[ (2018) 13 SCC 455 ] and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [ (2010) 9 SCC 368 ]. I am of the firm view that in the given facts, if the prosecution is permitted to proceed with further investigation in search of any material to connect him in the crime, which they failed to collect even seven years after the registration of the crime, it will amount to violation of his fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 28. I am of the considered view that no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner to continue. When the chances of ultimate conviction are very bleak, continuation of prosecution against the accused will result in an abuse of the process of law (vide: Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka [ (2015) 7 SCC 423 ]. 29. The petitioner has placed materials which are of sterling and impeccable quality to rule out the assertions contained in the allegations. Those materials are sufficient to reject the factual assertions in the FIR and the Final Report against the petitioner. The materials relied on by the petitioner are enough to destroy the factual basis of the accusation against him. No materials have been placed from the side of the prosecution to refute the materials relied on by the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner would result in the abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. The Original Petition is allowed. The FIR, Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2020 (VC 5/2017/KNR) on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassry, as against the petitioner shall stand quashed. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment are restricted to the petitioner.