Investigative Dossier · Kerala High Court Writ Petition 2026
A Sub-Inspector of Kerala Police fabricated an investigation report in 2008. His own Government's Commission condemned him in 2017. In 2025, Kerala courts are still citing that condemned report. This is the documented proof.
"The man falls silent; but the truth still speaks."
Annex 4 · The Core Evidence
The answer is an unambiguous No. What follows is why Annex 4 is the single most powerful document in this case — and why it exposes the fraud in three irreversible layers.
LAYER 1 OF 3
The Investigation Was a Fiction
A lawful police investigation concluding someone is a foreign convict who
never owned overseas assets requires: verification of foreign court records;
examination of ownership documents; embassy consultations. These generate
irreplaceable documentary records
that termites and ants do not eat.
If the records were genuinely destroyed, the Sub-Inspector destroyed evidence
material to ongoing proceedings — itself a serious criminal offence.
If the records never existed — the more probable inference — then Crime No. 437/2008
reached specific conclusions about a named person's criminal history and property
without conducting any investigation whatsoever.
Either way: the report has no lawful evidentiary foundation.
LAYER 2 OF 3
The State Condemned Itself Through Its Own Tribunal
The Petitioner escalated the RTI matter to the
Kerala State Information Commission (SIC) — a statutory body of the
Government of Kerala under the RTI Act, 2005. Following a formal hearing, the SIC
issued a five-page order (Annex 4) finding the Sub-Inspector's conduct
to be improper and directing departmental action against him.
This is not the Petitioner's allegation.
This is the Government of Kerala — through its own statutory Commission —
officially condemning the conduct of its own police officer in relation to
the records that form the entire evidentiary basis of Crime No. 437/2008.
LAYER 3 OF 3
The Cover-Up Confirms Pre-Meditation
The "termites and ants" defence is not merely implausible — it is
strategically implausible.
It was deployed because it is unfalsifiable: one cannot prove that insects did
not eat a file.
An officer with nothing to hide produces records. An officer with fabricated or
non-existent records invents organic destruction. The choice of this specific defence
over any legitimate alternative reveals consciousness of guilt and
pre-meditated design to obstruct the RTI process.
Documentary Evidence
Official RTI Reply Disclosing Police Misconduct — Sub-Inspector, Kerala Police, Reported Records "Destroyed by Termites and Ants" — Kerala SIC Order, 2017 (5 pages)
Background of RTI Application: The Petitioner filed a Right to Information application seeking the investigation records of Crime No. 437/2008 — the evidence the Sub-Inspector claimed to have gathered before concluding that the Petitioner was (i) a convicted criminal in the UAE and (ii) had never owned any UAE business assets. These conclusions had been adopted by multiple court orders over nine years.
What the SIC Found: Upon hearing the RTI first appeal, the Kerala State Information Commission determined that the Sub-Inspector's conduct in relation to the maintenance and production of investigation records was improper and in breach of official duty. The Commission exercised its powers under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, directing departmental proceedings against the officer.
Legal Effect: The SIC's five-page order constitutes an official state-issued finding that the officer who authored Crime No. 437/2008 engaged in misconduct regarding the records underlying that report. Under the RTI Act, SIC orders are binding on all public authorities within the State of Kerala.
Officer directed to face departmental proceedings. State bound by this finding. Courts have constructive notice from 2017 onwards.
Critical Legal Consequence
After 2017, every Kerala court relying on Crime No. 437/2008 did so with constructive knowledge that the State's own Commission had condemned the officer who authored it. The 2024 order of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan and the 2025 order of Smt. Saarika Sathyan V., JFCM, were passed years after this finding. Reliance on Crime No. 437/2008 after 2017 is not judicial error — it is willful blindness elevated to institutional fraud.
State Accountability
Following the 2017 SIC order, the Government of Kerala had four mandatory constitutional duties. It fulfilled none of them.
AFTER THE 2017 SIC ORDER,
THE STATE WAS REQUIRED TO:
The State did none of these things.
The Legal Consequence of Silence
Instead, the State watched as Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan cited Crime No. 437/2008 in 2024 (Annex 17), and Smt. Saarika Sathyan V., JFCM, cited it again in 2025 (Annex 19). By its inaction, the State did not merely fail the Petitioner — it actively ratified the fraud and made itself a participant in a continuing constitutional violation. Each reliance after 2017 is a fresh tort for which the State bears direct liability.
Logical & Legal Proof
For Crime No. 437/2008 to be true, five separate and independent bodies across two sovereign nations and three decades would all have to be simultaneously wrong.
UAE Supreme Court, Abu Dhabi (1996) — Annex 5
Would have had to wrongly exonerate the Petitioner, wrongly brand him a Whistleblower Hero, wrongly document his torture, and wrongly award him compensation.
Supreme Court of India (1997) — Annex 7
Would have had to wrongly recognise his legal standing arising from the UAE judicial proceedings and the validity of the exoneration decree.
Delhi High Court (1997 & 2007) — Annexes 7–8
Would have had to twice wrongly affirm full ownership of UAE business entities and authenticate the Powers of Attorney in question.
Foreign Ministries of India & UAE (2004) — Annex 16
Would have had to jointly attest a Power of Attorney confirming ownership — a process constitutionally requiring prior state verification of title — for assets that allegedly did not exist.
Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce & Industry (1995) — Annex 13
Would have had to issue a formal Chamber certificate confirming registered ownership of a business to a man who allegedly owned nothing in the UAE.
20 Years of Injustice
1996
UAE Supreme Court: Complete Exoneration
Abu Dhabi apex court brands Petitioner a Whistleblower Hero. Documents torture. Awards compensation. Orders criminal probe into police perpetrators. Fabricated deportation order (Admin Decision No. 227/1996) issued to block enforcement.
Annex 5 & 61997
Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court Affirm Ownership
India's apex court recognises Petitioner's legal standing. Delhi High Court affirms full ownership of UAE business entities. Union Government mandated to comply with UAE decree.
Annex 72004
Triple-Verified Sovereign Authentication
Revocation Deed verified at three sovereign levels: Government of Maharashtra → UAE Consulate General, Mumbai → UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This process cannot occur unless ownership is independently verified at each stage.
Annex 162008
The Poisonous Root: Crime No. 437/2008 Fabricated
Kerala Police Sub-Inspector authors a report claiming the Petitioner is a "UAE convict" who "never owned any UAE assets." Both claims directly contradict three apex court judgments, two Foreign Ministries' seals, and certified trade licences.
Annex 2 — Fabricated Report2009
First High Court Betrayal
Justice M. Sasidharan Nambiar dismisses the 18-page Writ Petition seeking CBI probe solely on the basis of Crime No. 437/2008, without examining any international court judgment or ownership document.
Annex 32017
🔴 SMOKING GUN: Kerala SIC Condemns the Officer
RTI proceedings before the Kerala State Information Commission expose the Sub-Inspector's fabrication. Officer claims records were "destroyed by termites and ants." SIC issues five-page order finding conduct improper and directing departmental action. The State took zero corrective action.
Annex 4 — THE KEY DOCUMENT2020
Section 44A CPC: UAE Judgments Become Binding in India
Government of India Gazette Notification recognises UAE as "Reciprocating Territory." All Indian courts are now legally required to honour UAE court decrees. Reliance on Crime No. 437/2008 to contradict the 1996 UAE exoneration becomes a statutory violation.
Annex 182024
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan Perpetuates the Fraud
Seven years after the SIC order, four years after Section 44A mandate — Kerala High Court quashes the Petitioner's criminal complaint by echoing Crime No. 437/2008 without addressing any of the contrary evidence.
Annex 172025
THE IMPUGNED ORDER: Smt. Saarika Sathyan V., JFCM
Eight years after the SIC condemnation. Five years after Section 44A. Twenty-nine years after the UAE exoneration. The Magistrate Court relies on Crime No. 437/2008 as if none of it ever happened. This is the order now before the Kerala High Court for quashing.
Annex 19 — Impugned OrderWrit Petition 2026
Primary Relief A
Quash the Impugned
Magistrate Order
Declare the 2025 JFCM order void ab initio under the 'Fraud Vitiates Everything' doctrine (Vishnu Vardhan 2025; Reddy Veerana 2025). Exercise inherent powers under Articles 226/227 and Section 482 CrPC to quash an order built on a police report the State's own Commission condemned.
Primary Relief B
State Compensation
for 20 Years
Direct the State of Kerala to pay compensation for direct financial loss (one-third of ₹75 Crores), constitutional violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, malicious prosecution, defamation, gross negligence, and institutional re-traumatisation of an exonerated torture survivor.
₹25 Crores