IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13145 of 2009(Q)
1. BIJU VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUDHA, W/O LATE CHANDRADHARAN,
... Respondent
2. RENJITH, S/O LATE CHANDRADHARAN,
3. RENINI, D/O SUDHA,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/05/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
==================
W.P.(C) No. 13145 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009.
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for a direction to the 4th respondent-
Sub Inspector of Police to take action on Exhibit P7
complaint filed and also to direct the 5th respondent-
Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram to take action
on Exhibit P8 complaint.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. The allegations in Exhibit P7 and P8 complaints
are that respondents 1 to 3 executed Exhibit P1 agreement
for sale and received Rs.18.45 lakhs as advance and agreed
to execute the sale deed before the expiry of 17-6-2008.
After receiving the balance consideration, respondents 1 to
3 failed to comply with the conditions in the agreement and
in such circumstance the petitioner approached the civil
court and got an order of attachment and respondents 1 to
WPC.13145/2009
2
3 are attempting to protract the civil case and on enquiry
the petitioner is satisfied that as per the revenue records
they have Patta only in respect of 9 cents and they had
forged Patta in respect of remaining 10 cents and got the
agreement executed and in such circumstances a proper
investigation has to be conducted.
4. Argument of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner is that no proper investigation is done and no
case is registered and so respondents 4 and 5 are to be
directed to conduct proper investigation. The learned
Government Pleader submitted that even though Exhibit P7
and P8 were enquired into no crime is registered.
5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the case
registered or investigation of the case pursuant to Exhibit
P7 complaint, remedy of the petitioner is to approach the
Magistrate by filing a private complaint under Section 200,
Cr.P.C. With that liberty the Writ Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
dkr