IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4197 of 2008()
1. GOKULAN, GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDNET OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PREMCHAND
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/12/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 4197 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.744
of 2007 of Kottayam West Police Station. That crime was
registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the
petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the
learned Magistrate to the police under section 156(3) cr.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegations raised by the petitioner/
defacto complainant is that his brother, the first accused, along
with the second accused, his nephew, and the third accused, a
Notary Public, have forged a Power of Attorney under which the
petitioner is shown to have given authority for the first accused
to execute certain documents on his behalf. The petitioner came
to this Court complaining that no proper investigation is being
conducted. By Annex.II order the petitioner was directed to
approach the learned Magistrate. He approached the learned
Magistrate and Annexs.III and Annex.VI orders were passed by
the learned Magistrate.
Crl.M.C.No. 4197 of 2008
2
3. The short grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of all these
steps, no proper investigation has been conducted by the second
respondent, S.I. of Police.
4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. Statements have
been filed. I have been taken through the relevant documents.
5. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion on the
acceptability of the allegations or the details of the steps taken. Fact
remains that even today the original Power of Attorney, that is, the
allegedly forged document, has not been seized by the Investigating
Officer. A perusal of the records further reveal that no serious, pointed
or efficient efforts have been employed by the second respondent to
seize the original Power of Attorney, inspite of the directions issued
by the learned Magistrate in Annexs. II and VI orders. I am satisfied
that a proper investigation is not being conducted.
6. I do in these circumstances find merit in the request of the
petitioner that the investigation deserves to be handed over to a safer,
more competent and efficient hand.
Crl.M.C.No. 4197 of 2008
3
7. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. It is directed that the first
respondent shall conduct the investigation personally into Crime
No.744 of 2007 and shall submit periodical reports every month to the
Magistrate concerned, the first of which shall be filed on or before
1.1.2009. The learned Magistrate shall monitor the investigation and
issue appropriate directions from time to time.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm