IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7818 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUDHIR KUMAR PATEL,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.PRABHUDAS, FLAT NO.104,KALATMAK RESIDENCY, NEAR BHAVANAS VIDYA MANDIR SCHOOL, VIDYANAGAR,COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SMT.M.UMA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION.PIN-682 020 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION.PIN-682 020 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 020 4. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD., HR DEPARTMENT,ADAG HOUSE, PRAHLAD NAGAR,MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO PRAHLAD NAGAR GARDEN, SATELLITE, AHAMEDABAD 380 015. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.7818 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.1940 of 2010 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. There was theft of jewellery and cash from the house of petitioner on 26.11.2010. Police started investigation. According to the petitioner one Sandeep Uniyal and his wife had uncontrolled freedom in his house and hence petitioner suspects involvement of the said persons in the incident. Grievance of petitioner is that the said persons are not questioned and the antecedents of said Sandeep Uniyal has not been verified by the Investigating Officer. I have learned learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that case is being investigated by the Circle Inspector and that statement of Sandeep Uniyal and his wife have already been recorded. It is also submitted that their finger prints have been taken for comparison. 2. I am not inclined to think that it is within the realm of this Court to issue a direction to the Investigating Officer as to W.P(C) No.7818 of 2011 -: 2 :- what he should do and whom all he should question. Petitioner has a grievance that statement of Sandeep Uniyal and his wife was recorded in a causal manner when so many persons including relatives of petitioner were questioned. It is also the grievance of petitioner that the antecedents of Sandeep Uniyal was not verified by the Investigating Officer. 3. These are matters which the Investigating Officer has to look into. No specific direction in that regard can be given. It need only be directed that the Circle Inspector shall investigate the case properly and bring out the culprits. Investigating Officer shall ensure that investigation is expedited. Writ Petition is closed with the above directions. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv