IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 26903 of 2003(C)
1. CHELLASWAMI, S/O.TONY MUTHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. MURALEEDHARAN S/O. VELUKUTTY PANICKER,
6. BENNET S/O. VISWAMBHARAM, AGED 35 YEARS,
7. WILSON S/O. CHERIYA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :27/07/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 26903 of 2003
----------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July , 2007
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner, who is one of the
respondents in a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, is that on the basis of a bogus
complaint, Crime No.449/99 of the Parassala Police station has
been registered and that the Parassala police have submitted a
final report which has been taken on file as C.C.729/2000.
According to Sri.R.T.Pradeep the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the C.C. is now consigned to L.P.Register since the
accused who is a fictitious person could not be apprehended so
far. One of the prayers in the writ petition is to direct
respondents 1 to 4 to conduct reinvestigation into crime
No.449/99 so that the real culprit involved in the accident could
be brought to court and the petitioner, who claims to be totally
WPC No.26903/2003 2
innocent in the matter, could be absolved of his liability under
the claim before the MACT.
2. Though notice was ordered to the respondents on this
writ petition as far back as in 2003, it is seen that the petitioner
has not been able to complete service on all the respondents. On
a previous occasion when this case came up for consideration on
the basis of submissions made, the case was ordered to be
posted when moved again. Even now service is not complete.
Even though the counsel for the petitioner would request for
ordering reinvestigation into the crime presently pending as
C.C. No. 729/2000 before the Magistrate court, I am not inclined
to grant the above relief. I decline the relief sought for in the
writ petition. However, I permit the petitioner to move the
learned Magistrate with appropriate application alerting the
learned Magistrate by the grounds raised in the writ petition and
seeking orders under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. If the
learned Magistrate receives any such application from the
petitioner within one month of the petitioner receiving a copy of
this judgment, the learned Magistrate will dispose of that
application after hearing the State, the petitioner and anybody
WPC No.26903/2003 3
else who also according to the learned Magistrate ought to be
heard in the matter.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
dpk
