IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 24528 of 2009(Q) --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.617/2007 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................. PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- REMANI PAUL @ AMMINI PAUL, W/O.PAULOSE, THARAKANDATHIL VEEDU, PAMBAMPALLAM, PUTHUSSERY PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, MR.N.P.PRAJEESH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MEMA, D/O.BRIJITTA, DERONI HOUSE, T.C.44/293, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, VALIYATHURA WARD ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BLAZY BRIJITTA, D/O.BRIJITTA, DERONI HOUSE, T.C.44/293, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, VALIYATHURA WARD ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) No.24528 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of January,2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner filed a complaint CMP 3173/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram alleging that respondents 1 and 2, the accused committed offences under sections 420,463,464,466,467 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code that original of Ext.P2 sale deed No.2625/2000 of Sub Registry, Thiruvananthapuram was forged. Learned Magistrate sent the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure based on which Crime No.617/2007 of Fort Police Station was registered. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent Sub Inspector of Police to complete the W.P.(C)24528/2009 2 investigation and file a final report within a time frame contending that there was no proper investigation. Third respondent was directed to file a statement showing the progress of the investigation. The statement so filed reveals that major part of the investigation was conducted by his predecessor Sub Inspector and no effective investigation is conducted even by the sucessor. Even the original sale deed is not seized by the Investigating Officer and no steps was taken to send the original to the expert to get an opinion whether the sale deed was executed by the person as stated in the document or it is a forged one. In such circumstance, it is absolutely clear that there should be a proper investigation of the case. Writ Petition is disposed directing the fourth respondent to entrust the investigation to a senior Police Officer, with a direction to conduct proper, fair and effective investigation expeditiously. W.P.(C)24528/2009 3 Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006