1. I, Jabir P.K., the complainant in the above-captioned matter, do hereby submit this counter affidavit, against the order passed in C.C.No.884/2014 and in respect of the issues arisen therein, state as follows:
2. In the matter designated C.C.No.884 of 2014, the esteemed magistrate is hereby instructed to reassess the proceedings due to a protest complaint was filed following an initial investigation by the Guruvayoor Police (Crime No.437/2008), which concluded the allegations were based on a mistake of fact. Pursuant to the directive issued by the High Court of Kerala under Crl.M.C.No.1755 of 2017, dated 22nd August 2024, reference Annexure No.1 is appended hereto.
3. In 2012, when the original complaint was submitted, it thoroughly detailed the reasons for filing a protest complaint, particularly in paragraphs 30 to 33, those details aren't therefore repeated. The complainant, distressed by the conduct of the police officials in charge of the investigation, sought intervention from the Honourable High Court of Kerala, on 07th June 2009, to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or an alternate competent authority, shifting from the Sub Inspector in Guruvayoor. During this interval, the Sub Inspector submitted a report to the court designating the case as a 'Mistake of Fact'. Documents pertaining to the judgment under W.P.(C). No.15905/2009 dated 29th June 2009, alongside the police report, are enclosed as Annexure No.2 and No.3.
4. Following the police report from the Sub Inspector in Guruvayoor, the plea for a CBI-led investigation was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala in 2009. Now, with renewed scrutiny, the trial court is tasked with reevaluating the second complaint against the backdrop of the same police report and judicial precedents previously cited. These instances starkly exemplifies the depths to which justice can be thwarted or stalled by deceptive police narratives under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).
5. Section 173(2) mandates police investigations to be both transparent and accountable, thereby guarding against unfounded accusations. Contrarily, the inquiry report by the Sub Inspector of Police in Guruvayoor erroneously stated that the complainant served a year's sentence in Abu Dhabi, followed by deportation in 1997. Despite assertions to the contrary, the judiciary, which includes both the trial and the supreme courts in Abu Dhabi, acquitted the complainant of all charges. The courts also mandated a thorough investigation into the inappropriate actions of the Abu Dhabi state police. In a landmark judgment, the highest court has furthermore advised the complainant to seek damages for the significant legal injuries incurred during this process. The report falsely concluded that 'Ramla Electro-Mechanical Est.' was not owned by the complainant but by a local named Isa Ahmed Jafar, leading to the closure of the investigation as a 'Mistake of Fact'.
6. The police report, lacking any corroborative documents, was an utter fabrication. The complainant had neither been punished or mistreated by any court in Abu Dhabi, UAE, nor does Isa Ahmed Jafar hold the license for 'Ramla Electro-Mechanical Est.' These are established truths. By submitting such a deceptive report, the Sub Inspector of Police in Guruvayoor committed a severe breach of trust and deceit, rendering him liable for prosecution for these transgressions.
7. On 03.03.2014, the complainant utilized the RTI Act to request evidence related to the investigation from the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor. The lack of response prompted intervention by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC of Kerala), Sri. Vinson M. Paul. Subsequent to this, the Sub Inspector asserted that the documents had been irretrievably lost due to infestation and damage by termites and ants. This assertion, known by the Sub Inspector to be misleading, has potentially tarnished the reputation of the Police Department. This matter has thus been escalated to relevant authorities. Enclosed herewith as Annexure No. 4 is the order for departmental proceedings against the Sub Inspector, issued by the Chief Information Commissioner on March 11, 2017.
8. The complainant is already an aggrieved individual, has suffered immense financial, personal, and social damages due to the fraudulent conduct by the accused, continuously endures the travesty of a police investigation marred by corruption and deceit. The gross misconduct of the investigating police officer, specifically Mr M. Surendran, the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor, under whose direction a severely flawed and deceptive investigation report was submitted. The officer's actions not only breached the statutory duty of conducting a transparent and accountable investigation but also misled the judiciary, thereby obstructing justice. The deliberate refusal to disclose requested documents, blaming their destruction on termites and ants, is a blatant display of the lengths to which they will go to bury the truth.
It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court carefully consider the decision made in Case No. C.C.No.884/2014, taking into account the detailed submissions the complainant has provided. The circumstances and evidence presented warrant a thorough review, and the complainant respectfully seek the issuance of orders that reflect the merits of the case.
Dated on this the 30th day of October, 2024.
Jabir P.K.
Complainant.
Document References:
• Annexure 1: High Court of Kerala directive (Crl.M.C.No.1755 of 2017) dated 22 August 2024.
• Annexure 2: High Court of Kerala judgment from 29 June 2009 (W.P.(C). No. 15905/2009).
• Annexure 3: Police report with noted discrepancies, dated 12 June 2009.
• Annexure 4: CIC Kerala order against Sub Inspector under RTI Act, dated 11 March 2017.
