IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28210 of 2008(G)
1. RAJU PUZHANKARA, S/O.LATE SANKARA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL
7. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF CRIME BRANCH,
8. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH
9. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME
10. JOINT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
11. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
12. SRI.SABARINATH, AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.RAJAN
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/09/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is filed by
the petitioner arraying 13 respondents with a prayer that the
investigation into a crime allegedly committed by the 12th
respondent may be entrusted to the C.B.I. The petitioner
does not even specify the number and details of the crime
which he wants to be so entrusted for investigation to the
C.B.I.
2. The petitioner explains his interest in the case in the
following words in para-19:
“19. The writ petitioner is a law-
abiding Indian citizen and a firm believer
in rule of law. Each citizen of India has
a bounden duty to prevent the illegality
and violation of law and to respect and
obey the legal system and its procedure.
W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G
-: 2 :-
In the circumstances, the petitioner is left
no other equally efficacious remedy than to
approach this Honourable Court under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India.”
3. This petition has been perused by me in detail. The
petitioner has been heard. The learned Public Prosecutor was
asked to take notice. The learned Public Prosecutor furnishes
the following details:
On the complaint given by a specified individual/depositor,
Crime No.480/08 of the Medical College Police Station,
Trivandrum, has been registered against, inter alia, the 12th
respondent. It is alleged in that crime that the offence under
Sec.420 read with Sec.34 IPC has been committed. The crux of
the allegations is that the de facto complainant/depositor was
defrauded by the accused persons. Investigation is in progress.
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the crime was
registered on 27/8/08. Considering the seriousness of the
allegations raised, investigation has now been entrusted to the
Crime Branch Police and they have taken over the investigation
W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G
-: 3 :-
from 4/9/08. One Mr.Harinath Misra, IPS., a senior police officer
who had served 7 years in the C.B.I., is carrying on the
investigation now. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a
proper and efficient investigation is being conducted and at this
stage there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for
transfer of the investigation to the C.B.I. The learned Public
Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner has no tangible
data or specific material to justify his claim for transfer of the
investigation to the C.B.I. The petitioner has not even cared to
ascertain the vital and relevant facts and the application made by
a person like him, who has no real, substantial, tangible or
sublime interest in the investigation of the crime, only deserves
to be rejected in limine.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I must, at the
very outset, observe that I do not intend to express any opinion
on the complicity of any of the accused in that crime who have
already been brought on record or who, it is alleged, at the Bar,
are also involved in the commission of the crime. But it is
impossible not to observe that the petitioner has only made wide
W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G
-: 4 :-
and sweeping allegations without any serious pursuit as would
be expected from a public spirited individual who wants to
maintain such an application before this Court. I have read the
averments in the petition in detail. I have heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Except the nebulous, vague and
general information collected by reading the newspapers, the
petitioner does not appear to have undertaken any serious effort
to ascertain the details of the issues involved or justify his
grievance against the investigation. He is not a depositor. He
is not interested in any of the depositors. His credentials as a
public interest litigant is not even attempted to be revealed.
Essentially, the allegation is one of cheating and the petitioner
is not a victim of any such cheating also. I need only observe
that, at the moment and with the available inputs, I am not
persuaded to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction
under Art.226 of the Constitution to issue any directions
regarding investigation. I do further note that the petitioner has
not chosen to move the Magistrate, if he has any specific
information/data about the inadequacy of investigation. If he is
W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G
-: 5 :-
a public spirited individual interested in a proper investigation,
he must collect tangible data and share it with the Investigating
Officers and if he has not satisfied that, they are not interested
in pursuing the details furnished by him, he must certainly
approach the Magistrate and complain about the inadequate
investigation as already held by the Supreme Court in Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) which has been
followed by the decision in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police
(2008 (1) KLT 945). I am satisfied, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, that this writ petition only deserves
to be dismissed. I do so.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G
-: 6 :-