High Court Kerala High Court

Vasudevan vs Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vasudevan vs Director General Of Police on 4 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10553 of 2010(Q)


1. VASUDEVAN,S/O.KUNJIKRISHNAN,RADHA BHAVAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL),

3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(ADM),

4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

7. THE A.I.G.P(PUBLIC GRIEVANCE)KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJU. M.P

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :04/06/2010

 O R D E R
                     V.RAMKUMAR, J.
               -------------------------------------
               W.P.(C)No.10553 of 2010
              --------------------------------------
           Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010

                            ORDER

Petitioner who is the father of accused Nos.1 and 2

in Crime No.19/07 of Kadinamkulam Police Station

registered for an offence punishable under Sections 324,

354 & 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. inter alia seeks to

entrust the investigation of the said case with a special

investigation team comprising of Police Officers other

than respondents 4 to 6 (DYSP, DCRB,

Thiruvananthapuram, C.I. of Police, Kazhakoottam and

S.I. of Police, Kadinamkulam) and to monitor the

investigation.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions

submitted that the case was originally investigated by the

sixth respondent SI of Police, Kadinamkulam Police

Station and as per the orders of Superintendent of Police

(Rural), Thiruvananthapuram the investigation was

handed over to DYSP, DCRB, Thiruvananthapuram and

after conclusion of investigation the said officer has

W.P.(C).No.10553/2010
: 2 :

already laid the charge before the Judicial Magistrate of

the First Class, Attingal where the case has been

registered as C.C.No.763/2009.

3. When the investigation was concluded one year

ago and the offence has been taken cognizance of by the

Magistrate, the remedy of the petitioner is either to seeks

further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of

Criminal Procedure by filing appropriate petition before

the Magistrate. He cannot straight away approach this

Court and seek directions. Without prejudice to the right

of the petitioner to move the Magistrate in terms of

Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP 2008(1)KLT 724(SC)

and Kunga Nima Lepcha & others Vs. State of

Sikkim & others 2010 (4) SCC 513, this Writ Petition

is dismissed.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

skj