High Court Kerala High Court

P.S.Leela vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 26 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
P.S.Leela vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 26 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2832 of 2007(K)


1. P.S.LEELA, 58 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

7. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/02/2007

 O R D E R


                           R. BASANT, J.

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

                   W.P.(C) NO. 2832 OF 2007-K

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

          Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007


                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased, one

Kshemakumar. He allegedly met with his unnatural death

consequent to an accident on 14/1/06. A crime was

registered under Sec.174 of the Cr.P.C. Investigation was in

progress. Ext.P9 report has been submitted by the

Investigating Officer. It has not accepted so far.

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

that directions may be issued for the conduct of a proper and

efficient investigation in the matter.

3. Notice was given. The learned Public Prosecutor

has entered appearance for the respondents. The 6th

respondent has filed a statement to which Ext.R6(a) is

appended which shows that the Superintendent of Police,

Ernakulam (Rural) has directed that the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Ernakulam Rural

(Aluva) shall take over the investigation.

W.P.(C) NO. 2832 OF 2007-K -: 2 :-

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

view of the said order, the petitioner has no surviving grievance.

The petitioner bona fide expects that a proper investigation shall

be conducted as directed by the 4th respondent. In these

circumstances, no further directions are necessary in the

matter, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Advocate Mr. K.B. Suresh on behalf of one Mohankumar

against whom the petitioner appears to have raised allegations

wants to come on record. The learned counsel submits that his

client also welcomes a thorough, complete and proper

investigation in the matter. Baseless allegations have been

raised against him, it is submitted.

6. Inasmuch as the 4th respondent has already taken

necessary action in the matter, I am satisfied that no further

directions are to be issued in the matter. Proper investigation in

accordance with law shall be conducted by the officer who has

been directed under Ext.R2(a) to take up the investigation.

7. With the above observations, this writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-



                                                      (R. BASANT, JUDGE)


Nan/

              //true copy//      P.S. To Judge