IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33962 of 2009(Q)
1. V.RADHAKRISHNAN, KAMCHALAYANN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. ALEX K. JOHN, DY S.P. CRIME BRANCH
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (PARTY IN PERSON)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :21/12/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C)No.33962 of 2009 Q
--------------------------
JUDGMENT
Defacto complainant in C.C.No.351/2000 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II,
Aluva is the petitioner. This petition is filed
under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a
writ of mandamus directing second respondent to
conduct further investigation of the case,
inclusive of comparison of the specimen signatures
of the accused and others if any, by a handwriting
expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory and to
direct the learned Magistrate to commit C.C.No.
351/2000 to Sessions Court, Ernakulam, where, S.C.
No.124/1996, corresponding to S.C.243/2007 is
pending.
2. Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C)No.
31681/2007 for a direction to conduct further
investigation after quashing the order passed by
the learned Magistrate, refusing to order further
WPC 33962/09 2
investigation. By Exhibit P4 judgment dated
16.1.2008, this Court directed further
investigation, with a direction that it shall be
commenced within one month and to be completed
within seven months. Thereafter, a supplementary
final report was submitted on 24.1.2008 endorsing
the findings in the final report. Petitioner filed
Crl.M.P.No.2544/2009 for further investigation. It
was dismissed by Exhibit P6 order. This petition is
filed thereafter for further investigation of the
case contending that learned Magistrate omitted to
take note of the fact that there was no proper
investigation.
3. Petitioner was heard in person and learned
Government Pleader was also heard.
4. This Court, in Exhibit P4 judgment itself,
found that the case has to be investigated properly
as the very case of the petitioner is that the
signature seen in the F.I. Statement is not his
signature and the facts stated therein are not the
WPC 33962/09 3
facts disclosed by him and he has a case that it is
not only the Head Constable, but police officers,
higher ups in rank, are also involved. When the
report of the expert shows that the signature of
the first informant seen in the FIR prepared by the
police is not that of the petitioner, there should
have been a proper investigation as to whose
signature it is. Signature could be obtained in the
FIR only by the officer, who recorded the F.I.
Statement. When the signature seen therein is not
that of the petitioner, the real author of the
signature should have been found out. A proper
investigation should have been made to find out
whether the signature purported to be that of the
petitioner is that of the officer who prepared the
FIR or any other police officer. Unfortunately,
this aspect was not investigated. If it is found
that the signature seen in the F.I. Statement is
not that of the officer, who prepared the FIR, it
should necessarily be pursued further to find out
WPC 33962/09 4
as to whether it is the signature of any other
police officer present in the station at that time.
These aspects were not properly investigated at
all. Interest of justice warrants that further
investigation is to be made on these aspects.
5. In such circumstances, third respondent
Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Ernakulam is
directed to conduct a further investigation as
provided under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal
Procedure. It is made clear that further
investigation must be directed to find out the
actual person who provided the signature in the
F.I. Statement, to make it appear that it is the
signature of the petitioner. It should also be
investigated who are all involved in manipulating
the records. Without finding a person who affixed
his signature, purporting to be that of the
petitioner, investigation will not be completed.
Third respondent should make all effort to arrive
at the truth, as it affects the very criminal
WPC 33962/09 5
justice system as the F.I. Statement itself has
been found to be forged. Investigation is to be
completed as expeditiously as possible. Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva is directed to
stay C.C.No.351/2000 till further investigation is
completed. As without fixing the identity of the
persons, who all committed the offences, the trial
cannot be proceeded, it is not necessary to give
any direction as sought for by the petitioner to
take action based on Exhibit P6 report.
21st December, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv