High Court Kerala High Court

Mathew Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
Mathew Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12392 of 2007(A)


1. MATHEW VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.S.MOHANAN NAIR,

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.P.M.SWAYAM PRABHA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/06/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.

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

                          W.P.C.No.12392 of 2007

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

                   Dated this the 5th  day of June 2007




                                 JUDGMENT

On the petitioner’s complaint of an alleged theft on

19/03/2007 of a vehicle (bus), an F.I.R has been registered on

20/04/2007. Investigation is pending. The petitioner has come

to this court complaining that a petition for search and recovery

of the vehicle filed by him, has not been disposed of by the

learned Magistrate. Report of the learned Magistrate was called

for. The report shows that no such petition has been filed. The

petitioner is unable to furnish any better information about such

a petition filed.

2. Be that as it may, the petitioner has a further

grievance that the police is not taking proper action on the

complaint filed by him. Though F.I.R has been registered as

early as in 20/04/2007, no attempt has been made to trace the

vehicle, it is submitted. Whether the petitioner had filed such an

application for search and recovery before the learned

Magistrate or not, the duty of the investigating officer to

W.P.C.No.12392/07 2

conduct a proper investigation and to search and recover the

vehicle continues and survives, submits the learned counsel for

the petitioner.

3. I find merit in that submission. The learned Public

Prosecutor was requested to take instructions about the nature

of the attempt made to trace the vehicle and to conduct a proper

investigation. I am not satisfied that sufficient and satisfactory

attempts have been made to properly investigate the crime

registered on 20/4/2007. However, I accept the submissions of

the learned Public Prosecutor that the needful shall be done and

a proper and sufficient investigation shall be conducted by the

investigating officer . If necessary, steps shall be taken to trace

and seize the vehicle and report the action taken. At this early

stage of investigation, I do not find any necessity to issue any

direction to transfer the investigation. However, I am satisfied

that the investigating officer need to conduct a proper and

efficient investigation which, in the facts and circumstances of

this case, would saddle him with the responsibility of tracing the

vehicle also.

W.P.C.No.12392/07 3

4. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, accepting

the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that a proper

and meaningful investigation shall be expeditiously conducted. I

may, however, hasten to observe that if, within sixty days, proper

investigation is not conducted and final report is not filed, the

petitioner’s right to move this court again shall remain

unfettered.






                                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr


                           // True Copy//          PA to Judge


W.P.C.No.12392/07    4


W.P.C.No.12392/07    5


       R.BASANT, J.





         CRL.M.CNo.





            ORDER





21ST DAY OF MAY2007