Kerala High Court: The petitioner, known for his anti-corruption activism, filed the present writ appeal challenging the State Government’s order whereby it accorded sanction for a further investigation against Tomin J Thachankary (‘Thachankary’), in a complaint against him for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of his income. He alleged that this order would help Thachankary extend the investigation so that his career progression was not obstructed. The Division Bench of Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar* and Jobin Sebastian, JJ., allowing the petition, set aside the State Government’s order.
However, the Court observed that the further investigation, as directed by the State Government order, had indeed been carried out, and had resulted in the revelation of new material. The Court clarified that this material could not be deemed vitiated simply because it was obtained as part of an investigation initiated under an order that has now been declared illegal.
Therefore, the Court directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously with the framing of charges against the accused. Taking note of the significant period of time that has already elapsed in the matter, the Court requested the jurisdictional Special Court to make every effort to complete the trial of the case promptly. The Court specified that, at the very latest, the trial should be concluded within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Background
In 2002, a complaint was filed against Thachankary before the Vigilance Department of the State. The investigation into the crime continued for almost six years till the laying of the final report before the Special Court, Trichur but the case was transferred to Special Court, Muvattupuzha and yet again to Special Court, Kottayam on Thachankary’s request. Seeing that there was considerable delay in the proceedings, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the State Government’s order (‘impugned order’), dated 28-01-2021, that sanctioned further investigation in crime under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) after almost five years of lodging a final report and transferred the case to a different Special Investigation Unit. The petitioner alleged that the impugned order was intended to delay the proceedings so that Thachankary’s career progression in the State Police Force was not affected.
The petitioner argued that the order should not have been issued since the criminal proceedings against Thachankary had already reached a stage where a final report was submitted to the Special Court. In the instant case, there was no claim by the investigating agency that it had come across fresh information and hence the further investigation could not be ordered merely on Thachankary’s request. It was further submitted that Thachankary had also sought discharge, and upon its dismissal, filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court, which was ultimately withdrawn.
The Single Judge dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was neither the complainant at whose instance the investigation against Thachankary had been initiated nor was he directly connected to the case. The Judge also found that the State indeed had the power to order a further investigation which could not be denied merely because there was a possibility of its misuse. However, if there was an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power made out by those in charge of investigation, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Thachankary’s counsel stated that the petitioner had several criminal cases registered against him and therefore, could not be seen as a bona fide crusader against public corruption. It was contended that the writ petition filed by him was nothing but a ruse to vent his personal vendetta against Thachankary who had arrested him in connection with an offence while he was a jurisdictional Police officer.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that the rules of standing were essentially designed to weed out frivolous litigation from Courts and to ensure that there was no abuse of the process of the Court. The Court referred to Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Noida Residents Welfare Assn., (2025) 6 SCC 717, wherein the Supreme Court observed that while public interest litigations served as effective tools for addressing the grievances of the public, it must be carefully scrutinised to prevent misuse by those with ulterior motives.
The Court further referred toM.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3373, where it was held that if the State failed in getting the culprit booked for the offence committed by him, a party having a bona fide connection with the cause of action, and who was aggrieved by the order of a Court, could not be left at the State’s mercy and without any option to approach a judicial forum for seeking justice. In such cases, therefore, the Court would ordinarily rule in favour of the party approaching it if it was found that the litigation was not driven by personal vendetta or malice.
The Court refuted the Single Judge’s finding that the petitioner lacked locus and noted that he had agitated against the delay in completing the investigation into the complaint lodged against Thachankary, alleging possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, for over a decade. He had also secured directions from the Court in writ petitions filed by him in the past, and when those directions were not complied with, he had approached the Court with a contempt petition against the investigating officers of the respondent State. The Court further noted that the allegations against Thachankary were serious in nature and related to corruption while holding a public office in the Police Department of the State.
The Court was perplexed when it found out that the sanction was granted for the mere asking, and without examining the merits of the allegation raised by Thachankary that material evidence in his favour was ignored by the investigating officer. The Court opined that it failed to understand how the State Government exercised such a power more than four years after the laying of the final report, and that too at the instance of material brought to their notice by an accused person who had already approached the jurisdictional court with a discharge petition that was eventually dismissed. The Court observed that the impugned order was clearly vitiated by legal mala fides as the State Government did not have the power to issue such an order and, even if it did, the power was not exercised in the manner contemplated under law.
The Court highlighted Thachankary’s conduct, who till recently was a high-ranking Police Officer in the Police Department of the State, in deliberately causing a procrastination of the investigation and the framing of charges against him.
The Court opined that if the State, whose duty it was to bring the offenders to justice, took sides with an accused and permitted him to dictate the manner in which the investigation against him was to progress, it would be antithetical to the concept of ‘the rule of law’ which was recognised as a basic feature of our Constitution. The Court emphasised that in its role as the ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ entrusted with the duty of safeguarding the citizens’ rights, it could not permit such indiscretions on the part of the State Executive.
Thus, while allowing the writ appeal, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and while allowing the writ petition, set aside the impugned order. However, the Court acknowledged that the State-directed further investigation had already taken place which yielded new material that could not be vitiated merely because it was obtained in an investigation carried out pursuant to an order which was now found to be illegal. Thus, the de facto principle would operate to legitimise the said material for the purposes of the criminal proceedings that were to follow. Accordingly, the Court directed the Special Court to promptly frame charges against Thachankary based on the existing final report, along with any supplementary report the investigating agency may submit after seeking the Special Court’s permission and complete the trial in six months.
[Bobby Kuruvila v. State of Kerala, W.A.No.1291 of 2021, decided on 27-08-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: V. John Sebastian Ralph, B. Deepak, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Appu Babu, Shifna Muhammed Shukkur, Advocates.
For the Respondents: B. Raman Pillai (SR.), S.U. Nazar, Special Public Prosecutor (Criminal), A. Rajesh, Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), Rekha S., Senior Government Pleader, S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, Advocates.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
