High Court Kerala High Court

B.Somachudan vs The State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
B.Somachudan vs The State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8289 of 2007(J)


1. B.SOMACHUDAN, S/O. LATE S.BHASKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

6. SRI. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, (PC NO.4003),

7. B.SUNDARESAN,

8. B.RISHIKESAN,

9. ATHUL CHANDRAN, S/O. CHANDRANGATHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :30/03/2007

 O R D E R
                                  R. BASANT, J.

                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                         W.P.C.No.  8289 of   2007  J

                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                  Dated this the 30th  day of   March, 2007


                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution

registered under Sections 323 and 324 r/w. 149 I.P.C. He has come

to this Court with a grievance that no proper investigation is being

conducted by the police.

2. The alleged incident took place on 9.12.2006. According to

the petitioner, the police personnel had received information and had

come to the scene of the crime. But most unfortunately the police did

not take effective and prompt action. No F.I.R. was registered.

Long later, on the basis of complaints and representations, the F.I.

statement was recorded only on 15.12.2006 from the petitioner, who

was undergoing treatment as an inpatient in the hospital. The crime

was registered, inter alia, under Section 324 I.P.C. only. But grievous

injuries have been suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner, in these

circumstances, prays that the investigation may be entrusted to more

competent and efficient hands

W.P.C.No. 8289 of 2007

2

2. Notice was given. The learned Prosecutor, on instructions,

submits that the grievance raised is not sustainable. Proper and efficient

investigation is being conducted. Already, long prior to the filing of this

petition, on 1.1.2007 the police had filed report to include the allegation

under Section 326 I.P.C. Steps are being taken to get the bail granted to the

accused cancelled, it is submitted. In these circumstances, there is no merit

in the grievance that proper investigation is not being conducted, submits

the learned Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only

interest of the petitioner is that a proper and efficient investigation must be

conducted and the guilty must be brought to the book. The petitioner was

not aware of the report dt. 1.1.2007. The learned counsel submits that this

Court may ensure that there is proper conduct of investigation and if that is

done, the petitioner has no grievance at all.

4. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that it is not necessary to

direct that the investigation be taken over by any other individual/agency.

The interests of justice will be served eminently by directing the third

respondent, District Superintendent of Police, Kollam to monitor the

investigation and ensure that the Investigating Officer takes appropriate

W.P.C.No. 8289 of 2007

3

action in accordance with law for the efficient and proper conduct of the

investigation.

5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above

observations.

6. Hand over copy of the judgment to the learned Prosecutor, who

shall communicate the same to the third respondent.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm