IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4982 of 2007(R)
1. ANTONY ALEXANDER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/02/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.4982 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.194 of 2006 of
Kundara Police Station. He is arrayed as an accused along with many
other members of his family in that crime. Crime Nos.400 of 2005
and 789 of 2005 also of Kundara Police Station are registered against
the close relatives of the petitioner including his brother. The
petitioner along with a brother of his had come to this Court and filed
W.P(C) NO.6852 of 2006 with a prayer that the investigation into
these crimes may be directed to be conducted by a competent
unbiased police official. This allegation he raised because he had a
grievance that the 6th respondent in the said Writ Petition, one Circle
Inspector of Police-Rajendran was ill disposed against the petitioner,
he being the relative of an accused who was found guilty and
convicted for the murder of the petitioner’s father. The learned Single
Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition. But in W.P(C) No.1770 of
2006, a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P1 order directed that the
investigation be conducted into those 3 crimes by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kollam. The petitioner had
also filed complaints before the authorities and enquiry was
conducted into such allegations of improper conduct of the police
W.P(C).No.4982 of 2007 2
officers by superior officers of the police. Exts.P2 and P3 are notices
received by the petitioner in connection with such enquiry. According
to the petitioner, such enquiries under Exts.P2 and P3 have now been
completed and it is his information that the enquiry officers have
come to the conclusion that the powers of the police officers have
been misused to unnecessarily proceed against the petitioner and his
relatives.
2. What is the grievance of the petitioner now ? The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that certain influential officers who
are ill disposed to the petitioner are now working in the police
Headquarters and the result of enquiry conducted in Exts.P2 and P3
applications may not be revealed at all to the 6th respondent, who is
now obliged to conduct the investigation in accordance with the
judgment in Writ Appeal No.1770 of 2006 (Ext.P1). He therefore
prays that the reports of enquiry prepared and submitted in
pursuance of Exts.P2 and P3 may be directed to be made available to
the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent may be directed to take due
note of such reports while conducting the investigation as directed by
the Division Bench in Ext.P1 order.
3. The 6th respondent who has been directed by the Division
Bench in Ext.P1 order to conduct the investigation must certainly
conduct a proper and efficient investigation. Conduct of a proper and
efficient investigation, according to me, would certainly include and
W.P(C).No.4982 of 2007 3
oblige the 6th respondent to verify and ascertain for himself the
alleged contumacious conduct of the police officers who earlier dealt
with these 3 crimes. I have no reason to assume that the 6th
respondent will be oblivious to this requirement and would proceed
turning a Nelson’s eye to such report, if any, submitted in pursuance
of Exts.P2 and P3. The 6th respondent, I may reiterate, must alertly
apply his mind to all the events that have taken place in this case
including the conduct of previous Investigating Officers against which
the petitioner raised serious allegations. That is only to ascertain the
truth of the allegations which he is obliged to investigate. This would
certainly oblige the 2nd respondent to cross check and verify the
report submitted by competent superior officers of the conduct of
such Investigating Officers. The 2nd respondent must do the same. I
have no reason to assume that he will not do the same and it is
therefore that I choose to refrain from not issuing any specific
direction in this regard. Suffice it to say that I expect the 6th
respondent, who is obliged to conduct a proper and efficient
investigation to advert to all relevant circumstances including the
above.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is taking steps to get copies of such reports by making
appropriate application under the provisions of the Right to
W.P(C).No.4982 of 2007 4
Information Act. Needless to say, if he receives the same, he can
make them available to the Investigating Officer for his perusal.
5. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is, dismissed,
without any specific directions, but with the above observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-