Mohammed Siddique vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 28 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2495 of 2007()


1. MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHAHUL HAMEED,
3. SHIYAZ,

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :28/09/2007

 O R D E R
                             R. BASANT, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Crl.M.C.No. 2495 of 2007
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 28th day of September, 2007

                                 O R D E R

The petitioners, three in number, have come before this Court

aggrieved by the direction issued to them by the Investigating Officer

in Crime No.39 of 2007 of Panoor Police Station registered, inter alia,

under Section 302 I.P.C. relating to the murder of an advocate. The

petitioners did not appear and consequently coercive proceedings

have been initiated against the petitioners. The learned counsel for

the petitioners submits that the petitioners are unable to appear

before the Investigating Officer at the place where they are

summoned, i.e. Panoor police station, as the petitioners apprehend

danger to their lives. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the petitioners are willing to appear before the Investigating

Officer and co-operate with the investigation, but prays that the

petitioners may not be compelled to proceed to Kannur District,

where they apprehend danger.

Crl.M.C.No. 2495 of 2007
2

2. The learned Prosecutor submits that the Investigator shall be

satisfied if the petitioners would co-operate with the Investigator and make

themselves available for interrogation. The request of the petitioners can

be accommodated. They may be directed to appear before the Investigating

Officer at the Police Club at Kozhikode on any specified date, submits the

learned Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel then submits that the petitioners are unable to

go even to Kozhikode as they apprehend danger.

4. Detailed arguments have been heard. The statement of the

petitioners were earlier recorded at Kozhikode and I am, in these

circumstances, satisfied that the request of the learned Prosecutor can be

accepted and the petitioners can be directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer at the Police Club, Kozhikode at 11 a.m. on

15.10.2007.

5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed and the above directions are

issued.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

Investigating Officer may be directed to afford protection to the petitioners

Crl.M.C.No. 2495 of 2007
3

when they report for such interrogation. The needful shall be done by the

Investigating Officer.

6. Hand over copy to the learned Prosecutor.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm