Kerala High Court
Valsan K.I vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2011
Author: P.S.Gopinathan
Bench: P.S.Gopinathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/20TH MAGHA 1933
OPCRL.No. 60 of 2012 (Q)
-----------------------
CC.729/2008 of J.M.F.C.,MATTANNUR
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
VALSAN K.I.
S/O.ISSAC, KURUMTHOTTAM HOUSE, LECTURER
SELECTION GRADE,PP XII, HOUSE NO.188
PAYAM AMSOM DESOM, CHAVARA ROAD, IRITTY P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS
SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
TRIVANDRUM-695001.
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
IRITTY POLICE CIRCLE, IRITTY
KANNUR DISTRICT-670703.
4. THULASIDAS @ THULASI
S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, MUNDAN PALLIYIL HOUSE
ALACODE AMSOM, ARANGAM DESOM, NELLIPPARA
KANNUR DISTRICT-670571.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OPCRL.No. 60 of 2012 (Q)
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE JFCM COURT,
MATTANNUR.
EXT.P2:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.19.4.2010 IN CMP NO.3897/09 OF JFCM COURT,
MATTANNUR.
EXT.P3:- COPY OF REPORT DTD.4.1.2011 SUBMITTED BY CI OF POLICE, IRITTY
BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, MATTANNUR
EXT.P4:- COPY OF REPORT DTD.5.1.2011 SUBMITTED BY CI OF POLICE, IRITTY
BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, MATTANNUR.
ADDL.EXT.P5:- COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2.
RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
-------------------------
O.P.(Crl.) No.60 OF 2012
Dated-------------------------2012
this the 9th day of February,
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~~ In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a) A writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a reinvestigation of the case in C.C.729 of 2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur by an independent agency.
b) To issue direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate penal action against the erring police officers, if found guilty of misconduct.
c) To issue any other writ or order or direction to the respondents to meet the ends of justice."
2. The brief facts leading to the petition is that he is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.729 of 2008, now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mattannur. The offences alleged are under Sections 380, 457 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, there was no proper investigation in this case. Therefore, he filed a petition before the trial court and obtained Ext.P2 order for further investigation. As part of the further investigation, the 4th respondent, who was the accused, was questioned by the Investigating Officer, as evidenced O.P.(Crl.) No.60 OF 2012 2 by Ext.P3. In Ext.P3 dated 4.1.2011, it is reported that though the 4th respondent was interrogated, nothing was revealed out. One of the co-accused was remaining to be interrogated. But, on the next day without interrogating the co-accused, Ext.P4 report was filed stating that by further investigation, there is no likelihood of getting any fresh material and therefore, the Investigating Officer sought for closing the further investigation. At no stretch of imagination, I could not follow the logic. Going by Exts.P3 and P4, I find there is laches on the side of the Investigating Officer. There was no serious effort on the side of the Investigating Officer to interrogate the co- accused stated in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 gives an impression that by questioning the co-accused mentioned in Ext.P3, there is likelihood of getting some information. But on the next day attitude was diametrically opposite. Therefore, I find merit in the request made by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the investigation can be entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Kannur for further investigation.
3. In the result, this petition is allowed. There would be a O.P.(Crl.) No.60 OF 2012 3 direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to entrust the further investigation in Crime No.133 of 2006 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Kannur. Orders in this regard should be issued within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, shall take up the investigation as soon as the order is issued and file a final report at the earliest, not later than six months. The second respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P5 within a period of three months.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
cms