IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2146 of 2009()
1. MUHAMMED KUNHI, S/O. HASSAINAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. LAKSHMANAN,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/07/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2146 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the first
respondent to consider Annexure-A2 representation made
before the Chief Minister, with copies to the Home
Minister, the Home Secretary and Superintendent of
Police, Kannur. Case of the petitioner is that
regarding the death of Ajitha on 6.6.2006, Payyannur
Police registered a crime and during investigation,
petitioner was questioned and while questioning, he was
tortured and police men also allowed the relatives of
late Ajitha to manhandle him and on 24.4.2009,
petitioner was asked to get into the police vehicle and
when the police vehicle was stopped at a deserted
place, a Tata Sumo Van bearing Reg.No.KL-13/K 1229 came
there and two persons came out and thereafter the
police men told the petitioner that those persons will
drop him in his house and reluctantly, petitioner got
into the van and he was thereafter brutally beaten by
CRMC 2146/09 2
those persons and he was kept in detention for two days
and after two days, police men from Ulikkal Police
Station surrounded that house and took the petitioner
into custody and he was tortured in the custody also
and Ulikkal police registered Crime No.82/2006 for
offences under Sections 365, 323, and 324 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and subsequently,
after investigation, Annexure-A1 final report was filed
for the said offences. It is the case of the petitioner
that there was a conspiracy between the second
respondent and he was made an accused in that case and
statement of the petitioner was not recorded during
investigation and therefore, he was compelled to submit
Annexure-A2 representation before the Chief Minister
and it is necessary to pass appropriate orders on
Annexure-A2 representation.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. From the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, it is clear that
grievance of the petitioner is against the
investigation and Annexure-A1 final report. As held by
CRMC 2146/09 3
the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008
(1) KLT 724(SC)), the remedy of the petitioner is to
approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure. If the case of the petitioner is
that second respondent should also be an accused, he is
at liberty to file a private complaint. If his
grievance is against acceptance of Anenxure-A1 final
report, then also, petitioner has to approach the
Magistrate.
With that liberty, petition is dismissed.
22nd July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv