IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3710 of 2005()
1. RAJ KRISHNAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
... Petitioner
2. KRISHNA RAJ, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
Vs
1. SHAHUL HAMEED, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/04/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3710 of 2005
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2007
ORDER
The petitioners are brothers. The 2nd petitioner is the registered
owner of a car bearing No.KL08/AB 6598. The 2nd petitioner, the
owner of the car was a student at Bangalore at the relevant time. His
brother, the 1st petitioner lodged an F.I statement raising allegation
that the car kept in the garage of their house was found missing on
the night of 05.03.05. Accordingly, a crime has been registered and
the investigation was conducted.
2. In the course of investigation, the police appear to have
come to the conclusion that there was no theft as alleged and it was
only a false F.I.S lodged by the petitioners in collusion to cover up the
real state of affairs. Accordingly, after investigation, Annexure-4
report has been filed arraying both the petitioners as accused and
deleting the offence under Section 379 I.P.C and adding the offence
under Sections 468 and 201 I.P.C.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that on the
complaint lodged by the 1st petitioner, the petitioners have been
arrayed as accused. The petitioners have various grievances to raise.
They contend that Annexure-IV does not give all the relevant details.
They further contend that the 1st respondent, the Investigating Officer
Crl.M.C.No.3710 of 2005 2
was actuated by ulterior motives. The 2nd respondent, the local Sub
Inspector of Police has also interest in the matter. The 1st and 2nd
respondents in collusion are attempting to shield and cover the son of
the 2nd respondent and his friends, who the petitioners now allege had
connections with the crime of theft of the vehicle. In these
circumstances, the petitioners have come to this Court with this
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor in detail and having perused the
records, I am satisfied that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, appropriate directions can be issued, which shall ensure the
interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation and shall
also allay the apprehensions aired by the petitioners.
5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed in part. The following
directions are issued.
i) The investigation of Crime No.275 of 2005 of Thrissur
East Police Station shall hereafter be conducted by an officer to be
chosen by the 3rd respondent not below the rank of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police.
ii) Respondents 1 & 2 shall hereafter have no role in the
investigation of the crime. Necessary orders to this effect shall be
issued by the 3rd respondent within a period of 30 days under
Crl.M.C.No.3710 of 2005 3
intimation to the counsel for the petitioner. All necessary steps shall
be taken to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible – at
any rate, within a period of four months from the date on which the
new Investigating Officer takes over the investigation.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-