IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 28049 of 2010(Q) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ELIZABETH JOY, AGED 42, JOY VILLA, VENMONY PO, CHENGANNOOR PIN 689 121 BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENMONY, PIN 689121 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENGANNOOR PIN 689 121 3. SUPERINTEDANT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA PIN 688 001 4. THOMAS T JOSEPH ALIAS SUNNY PASTOR,HEBRON IPC SOUTH CHURCH, VENMONY PIN 689 121 5. V.O.GEORGE VARIKKOLETHU, VENMONY P.O.CHENGANNOOR PIN 689 121 6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001 7. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695001. R1 TO R3 , R6 & R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.28049 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T This petition is to direct respondents 6 and 7 to hand over investigation of Exts.P1, P2 and P4, complaints to the Crime Branch or any other agency other than respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner’s husband is abroad and she is staying with her children. Her complaint is that respondents 4 and 5 made sexual overtures to her which she resisted and thereon respondents 4 and 5 threatened her. She gave complaints to various authorities including the Superintendent of Police concerned but no effective action has been taken. In the meantime some persons called her over telephone and abused her. The complaint was forwarded to the Sub Inspector. The Assistant Sub Inspector who conducted enquiry also threatened her. It is alleged that respondents 4 and 5 (who are alleged to have committed the offence) are close associates of respondents 1 and 2 and if investigation is conducted by the latter petitioner will not get justice. Hence this petition. 2. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit detailing W.P(C) No.28049 of 2010 -: 2 :- the investigation so far conducted and its result. He states that on 23.03.2009 petitioner preferred a complaint to the Superintendent of Police concerned stating that somebody called her over telephone and used filthy words. Complaint was forwarded to the Sub Inspector who registered petition in the petition register, enquiry was conducted and it was found that allegation was true. The Sub Inspector states that he warned the person who called petitioner over telephone and abused her. Thereafter petitioner filed another complaint to the Director General of Police with a copy to the Superintendent of Police which also was registered in the petition register and after enquiry it was found that allegations are false. Then at the instance of the Inspector General, the Dy.S.P, Chengannur conducted enquiry. The Dy.S.P. also was satisfied that allegations are false and a report to that effect was submitted to the Inspector General of Police. On the direction of Superintendent of Police, the Sub Inspector registered Crime No.271 of 2010 under Sections 451, 509, 506 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondents 4 and 5. The Sub Inspector would say that investigation is going on and till date no offence as alleged is disclosed. In the meantime it is stated by the Sub Inspector that petitioner made complaint about the police officials also (Ext.R1[a]). According to the Sub W.P(C) No.28049 of 2010 -: 3 :- Inspector until then petitioner had no complaint against the police officials. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter was thoroughly enquired/investigated by the police officials concerned and allegations were found to be not correct. However petitioner would insist on her complaint about the alleged acts of respondent 4 and 5 against her. 3. It is seen that in spite of several complaints preferred to the police authorities it is only at a later point of time that the Superintendent of Police made a direction and a case was registered. It would appear that the Sub Inspector has already formed an opinion that allegations are false though even as per his affidavit investigation is going on. Petitioner has a consistent case that respondents 1 and 2, Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector, respectively are closely associated with respondents 4 and 5. In these circumstances it appears to me just and proper that an Officer superior in rank to the Circle Inspector of Police, Chengannur having jurisdiction over the area where the incident occurred conducted further investigation of the case. Hence the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that an Officer superior in rank to the Circle Inspector, Chengannur having jurisdiction over the area where the incident occurred shall conduct further investigation of Crime No.271 of 2010 of W.P(C) No.28049 of 2010 -: 4 :- Venmany Police Station. The Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha shall issue necessary orders in that regard within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the Superintendent of Police concerned. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv