IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15872 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ Fr.VARGHESE KAKKALLIL, S/O.JOSEPH, VICAR, ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, KEERIKKARA, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. ANTONY JOSEPH, S/O.DEVASSIA JOSEPH, CHERUMBALLIL HOUSE, RANIKOVIL PUTHUVAL BHAGAM, KEERIKKARA.P.O, PEERUMEDU (VIA), IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.15872 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the 1st accused in a crime registered at the Vandiperiyar Police Station as Crime No.153 of 2008 alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. The petitioner is the Priest of the local parish, against whom allegations have been raised by the defacto complainant. The crux of the allegations is that the defacto complainant was wrongfully restrained and assaulted. It is alleged that a dangerous weapon was also used for infliction of the injury. The victim was admitted to the hospital. A prompt F.I.R was registered. Investigation is in progress. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false and that the petitioner is entitled, in these circumstances, to get the F.I.R quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a background in the case. There is a dispute between the local parish priest and the local politicians about the proposal of the Church to purchase a certain item of property for the Church and it is because of such disputes that false allegations are being raised. W.P(C). No.15872 of 2008 2 3. On the face of it, I find no reason to assume that the allegations are so grossly false as to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the same. Whether the allegations are true or false will have to be investigated and appropriate conclusion will have to be drawn by the Investigating Officer. I am satisfied that there is no justification in the prayer to interfere with the process of investigation at this early stage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that alternatively there may be a direction to the 1st respondent Superintendent of Police to supervise and monitor the investigation. This submission is made, it is submitted, in view of the sensitive nature of the dispute raised and the possibility of the Investigating Officer being prejudiced because of the involvement of the local politicians. 5. I am not satisfied that any specific direction can or ought to be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the 1st respondent-Superintendent of Police, in his capacity as the superior police officer, is certainly bound to exercise supervisory control over the investigation. Section 36 Cr.P.C enjoins this statutory obligation. I have no reason to assume that the 1st W.P(C). No.15872 of 2008 3 respondent will not do the needful under Section 36 Cr.P.C. I am of opinion that no further, better or more specific directions need be issued. It is submitted that Ext.P4 representation has already been made. I am not persuaded that any further directions deserve to be issued. The 1st respondent, needless to say, will consider Ext.P4 while discharging his duty under Section 36 Cr.P.C. 6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-