Kerala High Court
Alleppey Company Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2011
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1495 of 2011()
1. ALLEPPEY COMPANY LTD., TAC HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. SANTHOSH, AGED 31 YEARS,
5. B.GIREESH,
6. MURALI.R,
7. K.SHIVADAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :25/05/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Crl. M.C. No.1495 of 2011
====================================
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011
O R D E R
Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondents 1, 2 and 3. Notice to other respondents is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass.
2. Petitioner before me is the de facto complainant in Crime No.770 of 2005 of Alappuzha North Police Station and C.C.No.344 of 2008 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha for offences punishable under Sections 420, 404, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally the case was registered against accused 1 to 4 (respondents 4 to 7). Petitioner thought that investigation is not proceeding in the correct line and thereon approached the Superintendent of Police with Annexure-III, petition. That petition has not so far been disposed of. Learned counsel submitted that in the meantime the Investigating Officer completed investigation and submitted final report against accused 1 and 4 (respondents 4 and 7) alone making accused 2 and 3 (respondents 5 and 6) only witnesses to the alleged incident. According to the petitioner, CRL.M.C. No.1495 of 2011 -: 2 :- accused 2 and 3 (respondents 5 and 6) are the brain behind the whole incident, investigation is not conducted in the proper line and in the meantime learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has posted the case for trial. Hence this petition to direct respondent 1 to 3 to take action on the representation submitted by petitioner and to direct further investigation in Crime No.770 of 2005. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.
3. Going by the submissions of learned counsel Annexure-III, petition has not so far been disposed of by the third respondent-Superintendent of Police. If Annexure-III, petition is not disposed of, third respondent has to do so. Until then trial of C.C. No.344 of 2007 has to be kept in abeyance.
Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following lines:
(i) The third respondent-
Superintendent of Police is directed to dispose of Annexure-III, petition (if it is received by him and not so far disposed of) as provided under law as early as possible and at any rate CRL.M.C. No.1495 of 2011 -: 3 :- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which the petitioner shall make available to the Superintendent of Police along with a copy of this Crl. M.C. The third respondent shall intimate the disposal of the petition to the petitioner and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate immediately on disposal of the petition.
(ii) Trial of C.C. No.344 of 2007 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha will stand in abeyance for a period of forty five (45) days from this day.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv