IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 324 of 2010()
1. ASHARAF, S/O.MUHAMMED RAVOOTHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. ASST. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :21/05/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 324 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ravindran, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22337
of 2009. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to handover the investigation of Crime No.98 of 2009
of the Kanjar Police Station to the Crime Branch. By the judgment
delivered on 16th December, 2009 the learned single Judge
dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal.
2. The pleadings in the case disclose that the petitioner’s
son Fazil died due to drowning on 16.3.2009. The facts disclose that
he along with three other boys named Amman, Afsal and Faisal
had gone to the river and on hearing the cry of the other boys, two
persons named Muhammed and Sunny rushed to the spot and
W.A.No.324 of 2010
– 2 –
brought Fazil to the shore and took him to the hospital where
he died. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that
though such a case is set out in the First Information Statement
recorded by the Police, it was not the one given by him. He
contended that his signature was obtained on the First
Information Statement prepared by the Police. The said
contention was overruled by the learned single Judge after
perusing the case diary and the connected documents. The
learned single Judge has held that even in the petition filed
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thodupuzha,
the petitioner had no plea that he was forced to affix his
signature to the First Information Statement which did not
correctly record the incident. The learned single Judge has also
perused the case diary and held that the case diary reveals that
the three boys who had accompanied the deceased son of the
petitioner had also given similar versions. In such
W.A.No.324 of 2010
– 3 –
circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the
decision of the learned Single Judge does not warrant
interference.
The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed
in limine.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge
vns
