IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 5706 of 2006(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RUKHIYA BEEVI, W/O.LATE IBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, SHAJI NIVAS, THILLERY MISSION COMPOUND, THILLERY, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) FOR R2 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI FOR R1 SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R2 SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R1 R3&4 BY SPL. G.P. SRI.P.K.BABU(SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1(a): TRUE COPY OF PAPER CUTTING PUBLISHED DT.22.1.2006. P1(b): .DO. DT.24.1.2006. P1(c): .DO. .DO. P1(d): .DO. .DO. P1(e): .DO. .DO. P1(f): .DO. .DO. P2: TRUE COPY OF DAILY PUBLISHED DT.24.1.2006. P3(a): TRUE COPY OF PUBLICATIONS DT.25.1.2006. P3(b): .DO. .DO. P3(c): .DO. .DO. P3(d): .DO. DT.26.1.2006. P4: TRUE COPY OF NEWS PUBLISHED KERALASABDAM DT.12.2.2006. P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED BY ME FROM DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, KOLLAM. P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED BY ME FROM DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, KOLLAM. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.5706 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P.(C) is filed for a direction from this court to the CBI to conduct investigation on the death of petitioner's son who was known as Shaji @ Devid @ Asif. I heard the Government Pleader who appeared for the Karnataka State as well. He has submitted that petitioner's son was killed in an encounter with the Anti Rowdy Squad of Karnataka State somewhere at Mangalore on 18.1.2006 at 11.40 p.m. It is reported that he was accused in seven criminal cases in Kerala and five criminal cases in Karnataka, most of which are for serious offences including murder, attempt to murder etc. On the face of it, he was a professional criminal and petitioner has not explained how his son happened to be engaged in an encounter with the Police at late hours of the night in Mangalore. Even though petitioner claimed that he was a student, no proof is adduced about the nature of curriculum attended by him. 2. In the first place, the W.P. is not maintainable in this High Court because the incident happened in Karanataka, outside the territorial limits of this court and the allegations are against Police authorities in Karnataka 2 who caused the death of petitioner's son. Court can order CBI investigation only if the death of petitioner's son amounts to a homicide. In this case, the version of the Karnataka Police is that on intimation from local Police, the Anti Rowdy Squad confronted petitioner's son who resisted with a fire arm and it is only in defence they shot him which ended up in his death. Petitioner has no case that the criminal cases systematically charged against her son which are 12 in number are bogus or unreal. This obviously means that he was a professional criminal who got killed in an encounter with the Police. There is no justification for this court to order any CBI enquiry in this matter. The W.P.(C) is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms