IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17553 of 2010(Q)
1. AMBIKA DEVI, D/O.LATE MR.K.A.UTHAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. VENUGOPAL (BROTHER OF PETITIONER),
5. RENUKA DEVI, KRISHNANIVAS,
6. N.MOHANDAS,
7. N.SASI KUMAR,
8. CHELLAPPAN, KESHAVA BHAVANAM,
9. RATHEESHAN, PATHMALAYAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.PRABHU MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :07/06/2010
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J
......................................................
W.P.C. 17553 of 2010
...........................................................
Dated, 7th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who claims to be a physically handicapped
woman aged 46 years residing along with her minor son in
Ward No. 7 at Ambalappuzha Grama Panchayath inter alia seeks
a direction against the 2nd respondent Superintendent of Police
Alappuzha, to relieve the Sub Inspector of Police,
Ambalappuzha from the investigation of Crime No. 301 of 2010
of Ambalappuzha Police Station and to direct the Superintendent
of Police either to investigate the case himself or to entrust the
investigation with a senior police officer other than the Sub
Inspector of Police, Ambalappuzha after calling for the records in
the above crime. According to the petitioner the 4th respondent,
Venugopal, who is the brother of the petitioner is a practicing
lawyer in the Ambalappzha Courts, and therefore, she may not
get justice , if she approaches the J.F.C.M. Ambalappuzha with a
petition under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
2. After the verdict of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v.
W.P.C. 17553 of 2010 -:2:-
State of U.P. 2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC) the power lies with the
Magistrate concerned to monitor the investigation of the crime
and the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Magistrate. I do
not think that the Judicial Officers in the State are amenable to
extraneous considerations such as one of the accused persons
being a practicing lawyer before them. The Magistracy in the
State are far above such considerations and I see no reason as to
why the Magistrate is, if approached, will show any sort of
partisanship or leniency towards the 4th respondent merely
because he is a practicing lawyer in that Court. The legal
remedies of a litigant cannot be channalised to suit his or her
convenience merely because he or she is apprehensive of the
opposite party in the case. This Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move
the appropriate Magistrate for suitable reliefs in the light of the
verdicts in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (supra) and Kunga
Nima Lepcha and Others v. State of Sikkim and Others
– 2010 (4) SCC 513.
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE