James vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 30 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19187 of 2007(H)


1. JAMES, SON OF AUGUSTHY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SANTHOSH, SON OF APPACHAN,

3. SAJI, SON OF APPACHAN, DO.

4. ULLAS, SON OF APPACHAN, DO.

5. JOICE, MATTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :30/07/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                       W.P.(C). No.19187 Of 2007
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                   Dated this the 30th day of July, 2007

                               JUDGMENT

The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper

investigation is being conducted into the crime No.127/07 by the 1st

respondent- Investigating Officer. That crime was registered on the

basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and

referred to the Police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3)

Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer to

issue appropriate directions regarding the proper conduct of the

investigation. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. After

taking instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor submits and a report

to that effect has been filed by the 1st respondent- Investigating

Officer, that a proper investigation has already been conducted and

negative final report has been filed before the learned Magistrate. It is

for the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the said final report, to raise

his objections, it is submitted.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner after being apprised all

the events that have taken place in the crime registered at the

W.P.(C)No.19187 of 2007 2

instance of the petitioner, submits that the petitioners shall do the

needful to challenge the final report and no further directions are now

necessary.

4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of

this writ petition does not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner

to challenge the negative final report by initiating appropriate

proceedings before the learned Magistrate

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
sj