P.M. Abdul Majeed vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 February, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 295 of 2007(I)


1. P.M. ABDUL MAJEED, PALAMADATHIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. ARIMBRATHODI RAFEEQU, S/O.ABOOBACKER,

3. ARIMBRATHODI ABOOBACKER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :27/02/2007

 O R D E R
                                   R. BASANT, J.

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

                           W.P.C.No.  295 of   2007  I

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

                 Dated this the 27th day of   February, 2007


                                     JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner, when the petition was filed,

was that no effective action is being taken on the basis of Ext.P2

complaint filed by him before the first respondent. It is now reported

that, though late, a crime has been registered as Crime No.18 of 2007

and investigation is in progress. The major grievance of the

petitioner is now redressed by the action of the respondents after the

filing of the petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though

a crime has been registered no effective investigation is being

conducted. The accused has not been arrested.

3. The learned Prosecutor submits that while it is true that the

accused has not been arrested, the inability to arrest the accused is

not on account of any insufficient conduct on the part of the

investigator. The accused is absconding and inspite of the best

efforts of the police they are not able to arrest the accused.

W.P.C.No. 295 of 2007 2

4. The learned counsel counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is willing to offer assistance to the police to lead them to arrest

the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that such assistance is

most welcome and the petitioner can point out the police the presence or

availability of the accused. The petitioner can do the needful.

5. Having been satisfied that the needful is being done, I am satisfied

that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition.

6. This writ petition is hence dismissed with the above observations.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm