High Court Kerala High Court

M.K.Janardhanan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 2 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
M.K.Janardhanan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 2 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10610 of 2006(K)


1. M.K.JANARDHANAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,

3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :02/02/2007

 O R D E R
                                      R. BASANT, J.

                             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                           W.P.C.No. 10610  of   2006 K

                             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                     Dated this the 2nd  day of   February, 2007


                                        JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation has

been conducted into Crime Nos. 174 of 2004, 265 of 2004 and 243 of 2005,

all registered at the Nallalam police station. It is not necessary to advert to

all the details and the sequence of events, which had taken place. It is now

submitted that final reports have already been filed on 29.12.06, 1.1.2007

and 27.11.2006 in all the three crimes. Cognizance has been taken by the

learned Magistrate and the proceedings against the accused persons have

been initiated.

2. As this Court was not satisfied that the directions issued in the

matter had been properly carried out, the Commissioner of Police, to whom

directions were issued, was directed to appear in person. He has filed a

statement. After perusing the statement, the learned counsel for the

petitioner now makes only one request. He submits that the statement of

the petitioner has not been properly recorded by the Investigating Officer in

these three crimes. The counsel submits that the petitioner has faith in the

Commissioner of Police and will be satisfied if the Commissioner of Police

would ensure that his statement is again recorded in the presence of the

W.P.C.NO.10610 OF 2006 2

Commissioner. The learned D.G.P. submits that the Commissioner has no

objection to this course.

3. The Commissioner shall ensure that the petitioner’s statement is

recorded in his presence within two weeks from this date and if necessary

further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. shall be directed.

Accepting this arrangement, I am satisfied that no further directions need

be issued.

4. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed in part to the

extent indicated above.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm

W.P.C.NO.10610 OF 2006 3

R. BASANT, J.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

W.P.C.No. 10610 of 2006

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2007

O R D E R

I have perused the statement filed by the first respondent. It is now

transparently evident that the second respondent has not complied with the

direction issued by this Court. There was a specific direction on 25.7.2006

that the investigation must be got conducted by an Officer higher in rank

than the Sub Inspector of Police. On 1.12.2006, as no statement was seen

filed as directed on 25.7.06, specific directions were issued. Inspite of this,

it is seen that, today when the matter came up for hearing, it is the first

respondent who has filed the statement. The conduct of the 2nd respondent

is far from satisfactory.

2. Issue notice to the second respondent as to why proceedings in

contempt should not be initiated against him for not carrying out the

directions of this court issued on 25.7.06 and 1.12.06. He shall also file a

detailed statement showing all the steps taken by him after the order

dt.25.7.06. He shall appear in person and offer explanation to this court on

the next date of posting. Call on 15.1.07.

W.P.C.NO.10610 OF 2006 4

3. The Registry shall issue a copy of this order to the second

respondent. The learned Prosecutor shall also communicate the order to the

second respondent.

.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm

W.P.C.NO.10610 OF 2006 5

R. BASANT, J.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Crl.M.C.No. of 2006

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2007

O R D E R

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm

W.P.C.NO.10610 OF 2006 6

R.BASANT, J.

————————————

W.P.C.NO.10610 OF 2006

————————————

Dated this the 1st day of December, 2006.

ORDER

I have perused the copy of the statement filed by the 2nd

respondent. To say least, I am not at all satisfied that the

directions issued by my learned Brother on 25.07.2006 have

been seriously implemented and action taken. Only one of the 3

cases has been charge sheeted and investigation into the other

W.P.C.NO.10610 OF 2006 7

cases is still pending. The fact that the Commissioner of Police

could not even get prompt instructions from his Circle Inspector

of Police about the progress of the case speaks volumes for the

effective supervision that he had undertaken in the investigation

of the remaining two crimes, ie., Crime Nos.175 of 2004 & 265

of 2004.

2. Further time is granted till 02.01.2007 to the

Commissioner of Police to ensure that effective, meaningful and

efficient investigation is conducted into Crime Nos.175 of 2004

& 265 of 2004. On 03.01.2007, the matter shall be called again.

The statement shall be filed on or before 02.01.2007 reporting to

this Court the action taken and the progress achieved. If the

statement is not filed, the Commissioner of Police shall appear in

person and explain the action taken in the matter. The learned

Public Prosecutor shall communicate the direction to the

Commissioner of Police.

Hand over a copy of this to the learned counsel for both

sides.

R.BASANT

JUDGE

W.P.C.NO.10610 OF 2006 8

rtr/