High Court Kerala High Court

Susheela vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Susheela vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 832 of 2009(Y)


1. SUSHEELA, W/O.ANILKUMAR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MAYADEVI PILLAI, JAWAHAR NOVODAYA

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

2. RANJAN, MANGALATH HOUSE

3. KRISHNA PILLAI, MALATH HOUSE,

4. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, NEDUMPALLIL HOUSE

5. VELU SWAMI, PUTHEN VEEDU,

6. THOMAS DANIEL,

7. JYOTHIPRASAD,

8. JIJU KUMAR, PULIKUHIMATHIL , AZHOOR,

9. S.I.OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANILAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :16/01/2009

 O R D E R
                                   R.BASANT, J.
                                ----------------------
                             W.P.C.No.832 of 2009
                          ----------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 16th day of January 2009

                                J U D G M E N T

The 1st petitioner is the informant/ de facto complainant in crime

No.608/08 of Konni police station. The short grievance raised by her and

her sister, the 2nd petitioner in this writ petition, is that the police are not

expeditiously completing the investigation in crime No.608/08. It is

prayed that directions may be issued for expeditious disposal of the said

crime.

2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The

learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that

emergent steps are being taken to complete the investigation. In

connection with the bail application of one of the accused, the case diary

had to be left to the office of the Government Pleader of the High Court.

Within a period of three months from now, the investigating officer

expects to complete the investigation and file the final report, it is

submitted.

3. I accept the said submission of the learned Public Prosecutor

and I am satisfied that no further specific directions are necessary in this

writ petition regarding the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. With the observation that compliance must be reported to this

court, this petition is dismissed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

W.P.C.No.832/09 2

W.P.C.No.832/09 3

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007