IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17732 of 2010(Q)
1. RATHISH.R., AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.NOBLE MATHEW
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :14/09/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
W.P.(C)No. 17732 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 14th day of September,2010
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus
directing respondents 5 and 6 to authorize any
superior officer not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police to investigate Crime
1119/2009 registered for the offences under
sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 326
read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Case of the petitioner is that there was no
proper investigation and the elder brother of
the petitioner was murdered pursuant to the
assault made by the accused and though accused
3, 6 and 7 were also involved, they were
subsequently deleted and a new accused was
added as fifth accused and as there is no
chance for a fair and proper investigation, a
W.P.(C)17732/2010 2
direction is to be issued to conduct proper
investigation by an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sub Inspector of
Police, Kundara Police Station has filed a
statement which reveals that his predecessor Sub
Inspector had investigated the case and he filed a
report before the court deleting the original
accused 3, 6 and 7 and adding fifth accused as an
additional accused and a final report was
submitted before court on 25.2.2010 and though
cognizance was taken, trial is not started. The
relevant portion of the statement in paragraph 5 of
the statement reads:-
“It is also born out from the
case diary that additional
statement of the petitioner
was not recorded by the then
Sub Inspector of Police, even
though name of the 3 persons
already arrayed in the First
Information Statement were
W.P.(C)17732/2010 3
deleted. Though the final
report has been submitted
before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I,
Kollam trial has not been
commenced. I have taken over
the charge of Kundara Police
Station on 9.4.2010
consequent to the transfer of
my predecessor. It is
submitted that all grievances
of the petitioner can be
redressed by me after
conducting further
investigation.”
2. On hearing the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned Government
pleader and going through the records including the
statement filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, it
is clear that there was no proper investigation. It
is strange that some of the accused were deleted
W.P.(C)17732/2010 4
without conducting an effective investigation. In
such circumstances, Sub Inspector of Police,
Kundara Police Station, the Investigating Officer
is to be directed to conduct a further
investigation with the approval of the concerned
Magistrate as provided under section 173(8) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petition is allowed. Sub Inspector of Police,
Kundara is directed to conduct a further
investigation under section 173(8) of Code of
Criminal Procedure on seeking formal permission of
the learned Magistrate and conduct a proper,
effective and exhaustive investigation and submit
a report as provided under section 173(8) of Code
of Criminal Procedure before the concerned
Magistrate.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006