{"id":250962,"date":"2010-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-28T18:42:59","modified_gmt":"2017-03-28T13:12:59","slug":"g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/09\/2010\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nCriminal Original Petition (MD) No.8151 Of 2010\n\n\nG.Kutty alias Ramesh                \t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.The Superintendent of Police,\n   Kanyakumari District,\n   Nagercoil.\n\n2.The Inspector of Police,\n   Kottar Police Station,\n   Kottar,\n   Kanyakumari District.\n\n3.The Inspector of Police,\n   CBCID Branch,\n   Nagercoil,\n   Kanyakumari District.\t\t\t ... Respondents\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis petition is preferred under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C to issue a direction to the\nfirst respondent to withdraw the case in Crime No.868 of 2010, on the file of\nthe second respondent and to transfer the investigation of the same to the third\nrespondent and to file final report against all culprits in accordance with law.\n\t\n!For Petitioner  ... Mr.N.Rajan\n\t\t     For Mr.C.Rajakumar\n\n^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan\n\t\t     Government Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to issue a direction to
\nthe first respondent to withdraw the case in Crime No.868 of 2010, on the file
\nof the second respondent and to transfer the investigation of the same to the
\nthird respondent and to file final report against all culprits in accordance
\nwith law.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that  the
\npetitioner’s younger brother by name Manikandan was murdered by six named
\naccused;  one Udhayakumar is an advocate and his brother Udhayashankar is
\nworking as Sub Inspector in intelligence wing; the said Udhayakumar is running
\nchit business in the village; the deceased Manikandan collected some
\ninformations regarding chit business and informed the same to the free legal aid
\nfor Human Rights Violation, Nagercoil; the founder of the legal aid center, sent
\na complaint to the higher officers informing the activities of the said Sub
\nInspector, Udhayashankar and on 06.07.2010, a news was also published in a
\nweekly viz., “Kumadam Reporter” and so the accused believed that the brother of
\nthe petitioner was the root cause for the news.\n<\/p>\n
3. He would further submit that due to the said motive, they hatched conspiracy
\nin the house of the said Udhayakumar to do away with the life of the said
\nManikandan and tTo execute the same, on 07.07.2010 at about 6.30 p.m., the
\naccused one Thiyagu, Jagatsingh, Chauhan, Raja, Sivakandan along with
\nUdhayakumar searched the deceased Manikandan and they murdered him with deadly
\nweapons and caused damage to the vehicle; iImmediately, the petitioner gave a
\ncomplaint before the second respondent police on the basis of which, a case has
\nbeen registered in Crime No.868 of 2010 under Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 341<\/a>,
\n294(b)<\/a> and 302<\/a>  I.P.C. r\/w. 3(1) of TNPPDL Act against Thiyagu, Jagatsingh,
\nChauhan, Udhayakumar, Udhayashankar, Raja, Sivakandan and two others; the
\nbrother-in-law of the said Udhayakumar viz., Selvakumar has handed over the said
\nThyagarajan, Jagatsingh, Chauhan, Raja, Sivakandan and Sudan to the second
\nrespondent; in order to safeguard the culprits namely Udhayakumar and
\nUdhayashankar retained them in the police Station till 10.07.2010 without
\nproducing them before the Court; the said Udhayakumar and Udhayashankar are
\nhaving many criminal cases and they have influenced in the Police Department;
\nnow the second respondent having hand in glove with the said Udhayakumar and
\nUdhayashankar, taking effective steps to delete their names from the array of
\nthe accused in the charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
4. He would further submitted that even though on 12.07.2010, at about 10.00
\na.m. the accused Udhayakumar has participated in a function at Pazhavilai
\nPolytechnic College, the second respondent has not taken any steps to arrest
\nhim; moreover, the Investigation Agency has recorded the 161 statement of other
\nwitnesses, whereas the eye witness is ready to give 164 statement before the
\nMagistrate, but they are not taking steps to substantiate the same.\n<\/p>\n
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also file an affidavit
\nof this petitioner and other eye witness. and submit that on the basis of the
\nnews published in “Kumadam Reporter” only, the occurrence has been taken place
\nand to clarify the same as to when the article has been published, he filed a
\ndocument showing the news published in “Kumadam Reporter” on 18.07.2010; since
\none of the accused is Sub Inspector of Police and he is intelligence wing, the
\nPolice officers have not taken any steps to investigate the matter in a right
\nand proper manner and they are taking steps to delete the name of Udhayashankar,
\nSub-Inspector of Police and his brother Udhayakumar.  He further submitted that
\nsince he wants fair and proper investigation in the right direction and
\napprehends that he will not get proper direction in the hands of the second
\nrespondent, he prays for the transfer of investigation and to substantiate his
\ncase, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court.\n<\/p>\n
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) had filed a counter
\naffidavit stating that after receipt of the complaint, the case has been
\nregistered and it was forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
\nNagercoil on the same day.  Immediately, investigation has been commenced, the
\nsecond respondent conducted the inquest and sent the body for autopsy, he
\nexamined the witnesses and recorded the statements of the eye witnesses viz.,
\nThirukumar, Rajmohan and Sekar and prepared the observation Mahazar, rough
\nsketch and recovered the material objects from the scene of occurrence.  That
\napart, he also examined Jeyachandran, Sivachandran, Thirumohan and Vinoth.  A
\nspecial team was formed for arresting the accused persons in this case.  On
\n10.07.2010, Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan, Jegan @ Jegathsingh, Chauhan, Raja @ Ashok
\nKumar, Sivakandan and Sudhan were arrested and their confession statements have
\nbeen recorded and two motor cycle has been seized and they are remanded to
\njudicial custody.  It is also stated that so far 50 witnesses were examined,
\nweapons have been recovered, the vehicle of the deceased was sent to R.T.O.,
\nstatements under Section 164<\/a> Cr.P.C. were recorded from Jeyachandran,
\nSriraghavan and Vivekananthan and they also made a requisition to the Telephone
\nCompanies seeking details of the phone calls of the accused.  During the
\ninvestigation, they recovered the Magazine extract and it is seen that the
\npublication is only on 11.07.2010, but the previous edition is on 08.07.2010,
\nthe occurrence itself has been reported on 07.07.2010.  Therefore, the motive
\nalleged by the petitioner is found to be not correct and except this petitioner,
\nnone has deposed about the presence of Udhayakumar in the scene of occurrence.
\nIt is also stated in the counter affidavit that the founder of the legal aid
\ncenter for Human Rights Violation is one Srinivasa Prasath, who is also an
\nadvocate practicing in Nagercoil and there is complaint and counter complaint
\nbetween Udhayakumar and Srinivasa Prasath, they have motive against each other,
\nthey are taking steps to investigate the matter in Crime No.653 of 2010, which
\nwas already registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Vijayamohan.
\nNeither Udhayakumar nor Udhayashankar were arrayed as accused in the said case
\nand hence, he prays for dismissal of this application.\n<\/p>\n
7. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and materials before the
\nCourt, the petitioner’s brother is one Manikandan and a news item has been
\npublished before the incident, on 26.05.2010, the mother of the petitioner has
\ngiven a representation before the police and sought for a protection, that has
\nbeen find place in Page No.1 of the typed set and it has been received by the
\nInspector of Police, Chief Judicial Magistrate and other people, that has been
\nfind place in Page Nos.6 to 8 of the typed set, the deceased also sent one
\nrepresentation to the President, Kanyakumari District Advocate Association,
\nNagercoil against the Udhayakumar and Page No.9 of the typed set contains the
\narticle reported in “Kumadam Reporter” on 11.07.2010 and the petitioner has also
\nfiled another article published in “Kumadham Reporter”, which was reported on
\n18.07.2010 and in that it was stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“,e;epiyapy; fle;j Vohk; Njjp (ekJ ,jo; ntspahd kWjpdk;) ,e;j tptfhuj;jpy;
\njd;dhh;t mikg;gplk; Gfhh; njhptpj;j kzpfz;ld; ntl;bf; nfhiy nra;ag;gl;Ls;shh;.
\n,e;jr; rk;gtk; ele;jNghJ csTg;gphpT v];.I.ahd cjarq;fh;, jdJ mYtyfj;jpy;jhd;
\ngzpapy; ,Ue;Js;shh;.  vdpDk; mtuJ J}z;Ljypy; mtuJ rNfhjuuhd tof;fwpQh; cjaFkhh;,
\n,th;fsJ rpj;jg;gh kfd; jpahF cs;spl;l vl;Lg; Ngh; Nehpy; te;J kzpfz;lidj;
\njPh;j;Jf;fl;bajhf Gfhh; $wg;gl;Ls;sJ.”\n<\/p>\n
So, it shows that the release of article in “Kumadham Reporter” is only on
\n11.07.2010, but the occurrence has been taken place on 07.07.2010 and hence, the
\naverment in Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit does not merit any acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
8. The learned Government Advocate would fairly conceded that they have taken
\nsteps to record statements under Section 164<\/a> Cr.P.C. of Jeyachandran,
\nSriraghavan and Vivekananthan before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
\nNagercoil, but admittedly they are not taking any steps to record 164 statement
\nof the petitioner and others viz., Thirukumar, Rajomohan, Thirumohan and Vinoth
\nand they also filed an affidavit to show that they are the eye witnesses and
\nthey are ready to give statement under Section 164<\/a> Cr.P.C. before the
\nMagistrate, that has been find place in Page Nos.22 to 31 of the typed set.  The
\nlearned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has not able to give any reason as to
\nwhy the Investigation Agency has not taken any steps to record statement under
\nSection 164<\/a> Cr.P.C. of the other eye witnesses including the petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n
9. Admittedly, Udhayakumar is arrayed as A3 in the F.I.R. and his brother
\nUdhayashankar is arrayed as A4, who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police in
\nS.B.C.I.D., the occurrence has been taken place on 07.07.2010 at 18.30 hours and
\nthe complaint has been given on the same day at 19.00 hours and in that, the
\nname of the accused has been clearly mentioned and the manner of the assault has
\nalso been mentioned.  In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Investigation
\nAgency to investigate the matter on the line.  So far, the said Udhayakumar and
\nUdhayashankar are not yet arrested.  At this juncture, it is appropriate to
\nconsider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
\nthe decision relied upon by him stating that one of the accused is a Police
\nOfficer and so, in order to instill confidence in the minds of the public and
\nvictim family, it is the duty of the Investigation Officer to refer the matter
\nto CBCID, but here no steps have been taken place.  It is also relevant to
\nconsider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
\nKashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration and another<\/a> reported in 1988 SC (CRl.)
\n864, wherein it has been held as follows.\n<\/p>\n
\t“5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
\nrecord we are satisfied that prima facie the police have not acted in a
\nforthright manner in investigating the case, registered on the complaint of
\nSudesh Kumar. The circumstances available on record prima facie show that effort
\nhas been made to protect and shield the guilty officers of the police who are
\nalleged to have perpetrated the barbaric offence of murdering Gopi Ram by
\nbeating and torturing. The appellant has been crying hoarse to get the
\ninvestigation done by an independent authority but none responded to her
\ncomplaint\n<\/p>\n
\t6. We are in full agreement with the observations made by the learned
\nSessions Judge. As already noted during the pendency of the writ petition before
\nthe High Court and special leave petition before this Court the case was further
\nconverted from 304 IPC<\/a> to 323\/34 IPC<\/a>. Prima facie the police has acted in
\npartisan manner to shield the real culprits and the investigation of the case
\nhas not been done in a proper and objective manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Since according to the respondents charge-sheet has already been
\nsubmitted to the Magistrate we direct the trial court before whom the charge
\nsheet has been submitted to exercise his powers under Section 173(8)<\/a> Cr. P.C. to
\ndirect the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and thorough investigation
\nof the case. On issue of such direction the Central Bureau of Investigation will
\ninvestigate the case in an independent and objective manner and it will further
\nsubmit additional charge sheet, if any, in accordance with law. The appeal
\nstands disposed of accordingly. N.V.K. Appeal disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others<\/a> reported in 2006
\n(1) T.N.L.R. 615 (SC), it is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“7. In this case, admittedly, the complaint was filed against the Police
\nOfficer.  Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance that in such a
\nsituation the interest of Justice would be better served if this Court directs
\nthe CBI to register the case and investigate the matter\n<\/p>\n
8. Mr.Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General although vehemently
\nopposed registration of the case but he fairly concedes that if at all the case
\nbe registered and investigation is to be carried out, the CBI would be an
\nappropriate authority to register a case and investigate.  We are also of the
\nview that since there is allegation against the police personnel, the interest
\nof justice would be better served if the case is registered and investigated by
\nan independent agency like the CBI.\n<\/p>\n
9. We, accordingly, direct that the CBI shall now register a case and
\ninvestigate of the complaint filed by the appellant on 09.09.1997 and
\n13.09.1997.  The CBI can collect the complaint from the SHO, Police Station,
\nKapashera dated 09.09.1997 and 13.09.1997.  The complainant will also provide
\nphotocopies of the complaint dated 09.09.1997 and 13.09.1997 in case the
\noriginal complaint is not traceable in the Police Station.  since, the matter is
\npending form 1997 the CBI is directed to register the case and complete
\ninvestigation within a period of three months form today.  We further clarify
\nthat by the aforesaid directions we are not entering into the merits of the
\ncontroversy of the case nor casting aspersions on anybody including the local
\npolice.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In Rakindo Developers (P) Ltd., No.I, Subburaya Avenue, C.P.Ramaswamy
\nRoad, Alwarpet, Chennai-60018, rep. by its Authorised Representative,
\nV.K.Venkatraman vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore,
\nChennai-600 008., 2.The Inspector of Police, E4 Abhiramapuram Police Station,
\nChennai, 3.Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai, 4.The Joint
\nDirector, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai reported in
\n2009 (3) CTC 43, it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Free and fair investigation is the fundamental right of a citizen under
\nArticles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and Courts i.e., Supreme Court and High
\nCourts, can entertain petitions for CBI investigation only in case of violation
\nof fundamental rights of a citizen.  The only requirement for the Court while
\nweighing the prayer is to examine and analyse the case as to whether it is a
\nrare and exceptional on where such relief should be granted in the interests of
\njustice and to avoid resultant grave injustice in the event of denial of the
\nprayer.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. ………. If really the first respondenthad applied his mind without
\nany bias, in all probability, having regard to the allegation made against the
\nofficers on of whom is a Deputy Commissioner of Police working under him, he
\nwould have himself conducted a preliminary enquiry before even passing on the
\ntask to be done by his subordinates.  it is agonizing to note that the Deputy
\nCommissioner of Police, CCB, without even conducting an indeendent enquiry by
\nherself, mechanically forwarded the same to be investigated by an Inspector of
\nPolice.  I am of the considered view that if the investigation is allowed to
\ncontine in this fashion, certainly, the present officer, who has to investigate
\ninto the allegations against his superior officers, will come to an erroneous
\nconclusion as if tis a matter of civil nature, for, it glaringly appears, only
\nwith such intention, the F.I.R. has been registered.\n<\/p>\n
\t13…………. But, is there any embargo on the Supreme Court or the High
\nCourt in transferring the investigation to a special agency when it is
\nestablished with the available materials that in a given case, there is a total
\nfailure on the part of the state police in impartially proceeding with the
\ninvestigation as expected of them and thereby, a great injustice would result to
\nthe complainant; the answer would be ‘no’, for the Court has ample power to
\norder so, to avoid injustice provided such power is exercised sparingly and only
\nin deserving cases.  The erluctance and hesitation on the part of R1 translates
\na clear meaning that if the investigation is allowed to be handled by the State
\nMachinery, it will undoubtedly end in grave injustice to the complainant.  That
\nis why the Supreme Court has held that in the even of the High Court coming to a
\nconclusion that it is a fit case for transfer of the investigation, consent from
\nthe State Government is not required at all.  In the case on hand, bias having
\nbeen attributed to the machinery of teh State Government, it is the Court which
\nalone can assess the matter with regard to various aspects and factors as
\nreferred to above and decide whether a direction needs to be issued.\n<\/p>\n
\t14………..Taking not of the fact that even after registration of the
\ncase, the police could not even knock at the doors of the main accused, one can
\nconclude that the main accused is still controlling the affars through through
\nhis relatives and patrons who are in power.  In view of the compelling
\ncircumstances making out this case a rare and exceptional matter to transfer the
\ninvestigation to the CBI, this Court directs the first respondent to forthwith
\ntransmit the papers\/records, if any, pending with him or CCB, to the Joint
\ndirector, CBI, Chennai.  since huge money is involved and allegations are very
\nservious in nature, the Director, CBI, New Delhi, is directed to depute an
\nofficer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police to conduct
\npreliminaryu enquiry and thereafter, the task may be entrusted with an officer
\nnot below the rank of Superintendent of Police.  The CBI should take into
\naccount the serious allegations made against the controversial police officers
\nof the State and porceed strictly in a proper perspective, for, none is above
\nlaw and if the theory of influence is allowed to rule over the police
\nadministration, then injustice would be rampant defeating the rule of law,
\nsometimes even resulting in deprivation of judicial remedies to the victimized
\npersons.  The Registry, High Court, Madras, is hereby directed to forthwith:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) despatch a copy of this order to the Director, CBI, New Delhi, through
\nEMS.Speed Post; and\n<\/p>\n
(b) forward the Case Diary File (running to 81 pages) produced before this Court
\non 08.04.2009 pertaining to X.Cr.No.119 of 2009 ont eh file of Inspector of
\nPolice, CCB, Egmore, Chennai, alongw ith a copy of this order to the office of
\nthe Joint Director, CBI, Chennai, in a sealed cover through a Special Messenger.
\nIt is further directed that the CBI shall endeavor to conclude the investigation
\nas expeditiously as possible.”\n<\/p>\n
12. Considering the above said citation, free and fair investigation is the
\nfundamental right of a citizen under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and
\nCourts i.e., Supreme Court and High Courts, can entertain petitions for CBI
\ninvestigation only in case of violation of fundamental rights of a citizen.  The
\nonly requirement for the Court while weighing the prayer is to examine and
\nanalyse the case as to whether it is a rare and exceptional case.  Here the
\nallegation is against one Sub-Inspector of Police, who is working in S.B.C.I.D.
\nIn such circumstances, the other Police people did not want to antagonize with
\nthe Udhayashankar and they are not conducting investigation in a right manner.
\nSince he was arrayed as accused in a murder case, even though he was
\nparticipated in the public function, neither he was arrested nor he was
\nsuspended from service.\n<\/p>\n
13. A perusal of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner would reveal that if a complaint was filed against the Police
\nOfficer, interest of justice would be better served if this Court directs the
\nCBCID to register a case and investigate the matter.  Further perusal of
\nrecords, prima facie shows that efforts has been made to protect and shield the
\nPolice Officer A3 and A4, who are alleged to have though instigated the barbaric
\noffence of murdering Manikandan by assaulting with knife, caused instaneous
\ndeath  and caused damages to the vehicle.  In such circumstances, the prayer of
\nthe petitioner  to get the investigation done by the independent authorities
\nseems to be a genuine one.  Even though in the counter affidavit, the second
\nrespondent has stated that they had made the investigation in a proper manner,
\nthey created some loop holes to escape the accused from the clutches of law and
\nthey are not investigating the matter in a correct direction with a proper care
\nand caution.  Since A3 is an advocate and his brother A4 is the Sub-Inspector of
\nPolice in S.B.C.I.D.,  is the duty of the Court to instill the confidence in the
\nminds of victim family and the public.  Since it is a day light murder at 18.30
\nhours and furthermore, the allegation is against the Police Officer, who is
\nworking as Sub-Inspector of Police in S.B.C.I.D., it is a fit case to transfer
\nthe investigation from the second respondent to third respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The High Court, in exercise of its inherent and pecuniary  powers, is
\nentitled to intervene to set right the illegality and\/or malafide action on the
\npart of the investigating authorities.  While the Courts sould not intervene in
\nmatters of investigation, which power, under the scheme of Cr.P.C<\/a>. has been
\nvested in the police authorities and an exception has also been made .  In
\ncertain circumstances, the Court could intervene in order to do justice to the
\nparties, particularly the High Courts are the guardians of the life and liberty
\nof the citizens and if there is any flavour of deliberate misuse of the
\nauthority vested in the investigating authority, the High Court or the Supreme
\nCourt may certainly may step in to correct such injustice or failure of justice.
\nIn order to instil confidence in the public mind and to do justice to the
\npetitioner and his family it would be appropriate to withdraw the investigation
\nfrom the second respondent and direct the CBCID to hold a proper investigation
\nin accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In an appropriate case when the Court feels that the investigation by
\npolice authorities is not in the proper direction and in order to do complete
\njustice in the case, it is always open to the Court to hand over the
\ninvestigatiion to the independent agency like CBI.  The investigation of an
\noffence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose power in
\nthe fieed are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable
\noffences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions
\nunder Chapter XII of the Code.  However, the unfettered discretion does not mean
\nany unaccountable or unlimited discretion and act according to one’s own choice.
\nThe power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition of which
\nthe power is granted by the Code<\/a> itself.\n<\/p>\n
16. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties as well as
\nthe dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, the investigation
\nand the detection of the crime, since A3 is working as an advocate and A4 is
\nworking as Sub-Inspector of Police in S.B.C.I.D., in order to instill confidence
\nin the minds of the victim famly and the public, I am of the view that it is
\nfair and proper to transfer the investigation from the second respondent to the
\nthird respondent.\n<\/p>\n
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in
\nCrime No.868 of 2010 on the file of the second respondent is transferred to the
\nthird respondent.\n<\/p>\n
cs<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Superintendent of Police,
\n   Kanyakumari District,
\n   Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n   Kottar Police Station,
\n   Kottar,
\n   Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Police,
\n   CBCID Branch,
\n   Nagercoil,
\n   Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n   Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/09\/2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.8151 Of 2010 G.Kutty alias Ramesh … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kottar […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-250962","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-28T13:12:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-28T13:12:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3898,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010\",\"name\":\"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-28T13:12:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-28T13:12:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-28T13:12:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010"},"wordCount":3898,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010","name":"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-28T13:12:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-kutty-alias-ramesh-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Kutty Alias Ramesh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250962","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}