IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8775 of 2010(Q)
1. RAJESH @ UNNI, S/O.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CB-CID, CW-II,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.N.MANOJ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :06/07/2010
O R D E R
* * * *V.*RAMKUMAR,*J.* * * *
* * * * * * * *
W.P. ( C) NO. 8775 of 2010
*Dated:*6th*day*of* July,* 2010
* * * * * * * * * * * *
JUDGMENT
Petitioner who has been served with Ext.P1 notice under
Section 160 Cr.P.C. by the 3rd respondent Detecting Inspector ,
CB CID , CWII, Ernakulam in connection with Crime No,
72/CR/SII/04 seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent not to
summon the petitioner any more for the aforesaid Crime as
part of the investigation or in the alternative to allow the
petitioner to be interrogated in the presence of a lawyer of his
choice in case he is interrogated in connection with the above
crime and a direction to respondents 2 and 3 Director General
of Police and the Detective Inspector CB-CID, CW-II, Ernakulam
not to summon the petitioner in connection with the above
crime unless and until new facts or materials have come to
light .
2. According to the petitioner, he has not been so far
made an accused in the above Crime and it is on the basis of
W.P. ( C) NO. 8775 of 2010 -:2:-
sheer suspicion that he was being interrogated by the
Investigating Officers and some of them had even manhandled
him.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement stating inter
alia as follows:-
Under the CBCID,OCW-II, Ernakulam Wing, 29 grave
nature cases are under investigation including crimes such as
decoity, robbery, house-breaking and theft in which cases
involving theft of jewellery shops , kilograms of gold and lakhs
of rupees were stolen by unknown accused without leaving
any evidence. It is very difficult to detect the culprits in all
these cases since the investigation in those cases is not confined
to any District in Kerala only but the offences are also having
ramifications in the State of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and other
States. In all these 29 cases, the accused persons are yet to be
detected. The petitioner was involved in robbery and decoity
cases while he was studying in college and got associated
himself with gunda elements. The petitioner is an accused in
Crime No. 167/2001 of Binanipuram Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 307 and 397 I.P.C. involving robbery
of 1,92,000/-. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 329
W.P. ( C) NO. 8775 of 2010 -:3:-
of 2000 of Chengamanad Police Station for an offence
punishable under Section 395 I.P. C. in which case the
allegation against the petitioner in that he along with 5 others
robbed 17.320 kgs of gold. In Crime No. 72/CR/2004
registered by CBCID CWII, Ernakulam Unit the allegation is that
the six accused persons therein blocked the complainant Binil
and his father and his brother while they were carrying 2.330
Kgs of gold worth 12.6 lakhs from Kizhakkambalam Town to
their house and they were robbed of the jewels and assaulted
and a country bomb was also exploded and the six assailants
had decamped with the booty in two motor cycles. In Crime
No. 329/CR/06 the accused persons had made a manhole in the
rear wall of the jewellery shop of Mathew John the owner of
Kachappally Jewellery and committed theft of 1934.9 grams of
gold ornaments and 25 wrist watches altogether valued at
Rs.11,28,379/-. The culprits in the above case had not left
behind any trace of evidence. For the investigation of the above
two cases, the antecedents of the Criminals, suspects , bad
characters and ex-convicts has to be verified. It was a part of
the investigation that the petitioner and others were
summoned to the Crime Branch Office at Ernakulam and their
W.P. ( C) NO. 8775 of 2010 -:4:-
statements are recorded. This was part of the routine process
to find out whether the petitioner is involved in any of the above
cases. The questioning of the petitioner is also necessary for
detecting the real culprits in the above cases.
4. The petitioner cannot take exception to any of the
investigating officers summoning the petitioners under Sec. 160
Cr.P.C. as a person who is believed to be acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case. The Investigating Agency
has not so far arrayed the petitioner as an accused in the above
said case evidently for want of incriminating materials in
support of the same. But the petitioner cannot keep the police
at bay by seeking a direction as has been prayed for in this case.
The question as to whether the petitioner has been manhandled
is a matter to be considered by the appropriate Magistrate as
and when a complaint is lodged in that behalf. Even if the
petitioner has been acquitted in some other crimes registered
against him that is not a reason for claiming immunity from
interrogation as a suspect. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant
the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is
manhandled or subjected to corporal torture he can certainly
move the Magistrate concerned and thereby set the criminal
W.P. ( C) NO. 8775 of 2010 -:5:-
law in motion. But the petitioner cannot claim a total immunity
from interrogation by the police, I am sure that the 3rd
respondent or any police officer under the 2nd and 3rd
respondents will not subject the petitioner to corporal torture
under the guise of investigation or interrogation. Clarifying this
position, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
In case the petitioner is again required to be interrogated
in connection with the aforesaid crime, the 3rd respondent shall
give fresh notice to the petitioner under Sec. 160 Cr.P.C. since
the date and time fixed under Ext.P1 notice have already
expired.
Dated this the 7thn day of July, 2010.
Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge
ani.