Kerala High Court
Valsala Kumari vs Sivaraman Nair on 19 January, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935
WP(C).No. 6006 of 2014 (A)
---------------------------
(CRIME NO.40/2012 OF RANNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA)
..........
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
VALSALA KUMARI, AGED 63 YEARS,
W/O. PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR,
THAYYIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERIMALA MURI, RANNI VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SRI.V.V.RAJA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. SIVARAMAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O. KOCHUKUNJU NAIR, VALIYA KALAYIL VEEDU,
PUTHUSSERIMALA P.O., PUTHUSSERIMALA MURI,
RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 670.
2. SANTHAMMA, AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, VALIYA KALAYIL VEEDU,
PUTHUSSERIMALA P.O., PUTHUSSERIMALA MURI,
RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 670.
3. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O. KOCHUKUNJU NAIR, VALIYA KALAYIL VEEDU,
PUTHUSSERIMALA P.O., PUTHUSSERIMALA MURI,
RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 670.
4. OMANAYAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O. SOMAN, VALIYA KALAYIL VEEDU, PUTHUSSERIMALA P.O.,
PUTHUSSERIMALA MURI, RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 670.
Kss ..2/-
..2....
WPC.NO.6006/2014 (A)
5. NANDAKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS,
CHARUVUKALAYIL, PUTHUSSERIMALA P.O.,
PUTHUSSERIMALA MURI, RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 670.
6. SURESH, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O. KUTTAPPAN NAIR, SURESH BHAVAN, PUTHUSSERIMALA MURI,
RANNI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 670.
7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
RANNI POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 670.
8. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
RANNI POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 670.
9. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.
R7 TO R9 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.S. HYMA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
WP(C).No. 6006 of 2014 (A)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.40 OF 2012 OF JFMC, RANNI
DATED 19.1.2012.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.1.2012 WHICH WAS
NUMBERED AS CRL.MP NO.328 OF 2012.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 25.2.2012 IN CRIME
NO.40 OF 2012.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND FIR DATED 11.5.2009
REGISTERED AGAINST SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS IN CRIME NO.277 OF 2009
OF RANNI POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND THE COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.67 OF
2010 OF RANNI POLICE STATION DATED 4.2.2010.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNEX.R7(A): COPY OF THE FIR.
ANNEX.R7(B): COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.6006 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2014
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, to issue direction to the respondent to conduct proper investigation in respect of Crime No.40/2012 of Ranni Police Station, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the defacto-complainant and injured in Crime No.40/2012 of Ranni Police Station. He gave Ext.P2 complaint regarding the incident happened on two occasions, against respondents 1 to 6 and on that basis Ext.P1 crime was registered as Crime No.40/2012 of Ranni Police Station. Ext.P2 complaint was field by the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni, which was forwarded to the police for investigation by the W.P.(C). No.6006 of 2014 2 learned magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On that basis Ext.P1 first information report was registered, as Crime No.40/2012 against the respondents 1 to 6 under Section 143, 447, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police and Ext.P3 final report has been filed, which was taken on file as C.C. No.499/2012 and pending before that court. On going through the statements produced along with the final report, the petitioner came to understand that, the statements have not been properly recorded and nothing was mentioned about the 2nd incident narrated in the complaint. Further in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, a commission has been taken out and the nature of damage caused have been noted and that civil suit is also pending. Dissatisfied with the nature of investigation conducted and the outcome of the final report, the petitioner has approached this court, seeking the following relief: W.P.(C). No.6006 of 2014 3
a. issue a direction to the respondents 7 to 9 to conduct a further investigation or a reinvestigation in Crime No.40 of 2012 of Ranni Police Station and complete the same within a time frame.
b. issue a direction to the 9th respondent to supervise the further investigation in Crime No.40 of 2012.
c. issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. On the basis of the allegations in the petition, a report has been called for from the investigating officer and the investigating officer has filed a statement, which reads as follows:
"1. It is respectfully submitted that the above writ petition has been filed by Valsalakumari, W/o. Pankajakshan Nair, Thattayil Veedu, Puthusherimala, Ranni before the Hon'ble High Court seeking for further investigation of crime 40/12 of Ranni Police Station.
2. It is submitted that on 19th of January 2012, an order U/S 156(3) Cr.PC (in CMP No.328/12) from the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni, was received in Ranni Police Station for investigation and report. In this regard FIR was registered on 19th January 2012 at 19:30 hrs in Ranni Police Station u/s 427, 447 & 34 IPC as crime 40/12. The case was registered by the Inspector of Police Ranni and endorsed to K.G. Sasi, Sub Inspector of Police Ranni for investigation.
3. It is submitted that the brief of the private complaint was that on 20.12.2011 the accused persons A1 Sivadasan Nair, A2 Santhamma, A3 Ramakrishnan Nair, A4 Omanaamma, A5 Nandakumar, A6 Suresh and A7 Jalaja Kumari unlawfully assembled and trespassed into W.P.(C). No.6006 of 2014 4 the property of the complainant in survey no.614/132, 614/112 and 614/111 of Ranni Village and made a new pathway in the property. In connection with the above incident the complainant had incurred a loss of Rs.8,000/-
4. It is submitted that on 20.02.2012, the Sub Inspector of Police took up the investigation and conducted the investigation. As a part of the investigation, the investigation officer visited the place of occurrence at 11:00 hrs, prepared the scene mahazar and took the statement of witnesses. On the same day a preliminary report was submitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni that the accused also committed the offences of section 143 and 149 of IPC and excluded section 34 of IPC.
5. It is submitted that, after the completion of the investigation of the case, the Sub Inspector of Police has given the final report before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni on 25th February 2012 u/s. 143, 447, 427 & 149 IPC against all the accused. The case is now in pending trial before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni as CC No.499/2012. The true copy of the FIR and Final Report are also attached here with for kind perusal and Annexure R7
(a) & AnnexureR7(b).
6. It is submitted that, investigation was proper on all accounts, and statements of witnesses and the complainant were duly taken. Mahasar also was properly prepared. The allegation that statement was not taken from the petitioner and CW2 is wrong, and against the facts. As investigation was properly done and charge sheet is duly filed, there is no need for further investigation of crime 40/2012 of Ranni Police Station.
On perusal of the case of fact, the accused persons were absconding and an absconding charge was submitted before the Hon'ble Court. The statement of facts submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for considering the matter and for deciding the writ petition."
W.P.(C). No.6006 of 2014 5
4. It is seen from the report that, after investigation, Annexures-R7(a) and R7(b) final reports were filed and it is now pending before the magistrate court as C.C.No.499/2012 and since the accused were absconding, the final report was filed showing them as absconding accused. According to the respondent, the investigation was properly conducted.
5. According to the petitioner, the statement has not been properly recorded and in fact certain allegations made in the complaint were also not properly investigated by the investigating officer and it was simply, without questioning the witnesses and recording the statement properly, that the final report was filed. It was mentioned in the statement filed by the investigating officer that, there is no such 2nd incident as alleged in the complaint occurred. It is not correct. So according to him, a further investigation is required in this regard.
6. Once, the final report has already been filed W.P.(C). No.6006 of 2014 6 before the court and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, his remedy is to file a complaint, showing the latches committed by the investigating officer or if any offence is omitted, incorporate those offences and if any accused were omitted, showing their name also and adduce evidence before that court or he can also move the higher authorities by filing an application stating these latches asking for a further investigation in the matter. She can also move an application before the same magistrate court through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, showing the lacuna in the investigation conducted and apprising that court for the necessity of further investigation and sought the intervention of that court also, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, when such remedies are available to the petitioner, it is not proper for this court to invoke the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct further investigation. If the petitioner files an application W.P.(C). No.6006 of 2014 7 before the District Police Superintendent, showing the latches in the conduct of investigation and ask for a further investigation in this regard, then that can be considered by the District Police Chief and pass appropriate orders on that application in accordance with law. If the petitioner files an application before the magistrate court, seeking for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the 'Code' through the Assistant Public Prosecutor or by herself, then the magistrate is directed to consider that application and also pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
With the above observation and direction the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss