High Court Kerala High Court

Shaji N.M. vs The Superintendent Of Police on 22 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Shaji N.M. vs The Superintendent Of Police on 22 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19484 of 2010(Q)


1. SHAJI N.M., AGED 48 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :22/07/2010

 O R D E R
                       V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                   = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                    W.P.(c).No.19484 of 2010
                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
              Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1211 of 2009

of Vaikam Police Station registered for offences punishable

under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC, seeks a

direction to hand over the investigation of the above crime to any

officer superior in rank to respondents 3 and 4 namely Circle

Inspector of Police, Vaikom and Sub Inspector of Police, Vaikom

respectively.

2. If the investigation conducted by respondents 3 and 4 is

not on proper lines, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the

Magistrate concerned.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted

that the case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused along with

the petitioner herein concocted non-liability certificate of State

Bank of India so as to produce the same before the British High

Commission and the petitioner who was assisting the 1st accused

W.P.(c)No. 19484 of 2010
2

for preparing the forged documents is absconding.

4. As mentioned earlier if the investigation is not

proceeding on proper lines and if the respondents 3 and 4 are

not conducting the investigation in accordance with law and the

investigation is a tainted investigation, the petitioner’s remedy is

not to approach this Court by filing a writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. His remedy is to move the

Magistrate in the light of the decision reported in Thomas V.C

Achamma Thomas and another (2009(2) KHC 693) and also in

the light of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and others. (2008(1)

KLT 724 SC)

This writ petition is disposed of reserving the above right of

the petitioner.

Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

sj