IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27312 of 2009(Q) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.BHASKARAN, KUZHIPPARAMBIL, THOMATTUCHAL, SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADVS. MR.N.SUKUMARAN, MR.S.SHYAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KALPATTA. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. NAZAR .S.U. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON 19/02/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ----------------------------------------- WP(C) No.27312 of 2009-Q ----------------------------------------- Dated 19th February 2010 Judgment This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs : “A. Call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P5 from the respondents ; B. Issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the 1st respondent to refer Crime No.275 of 2009 of the Sulthan Bathery Police Station and Exts.P3 to P5 complaints of the petitioner to the C.B.I. for investigation ; C. Alternatively to command the second respondent by a writ of mandamus to direct investigation of Crime No.275 of 2009 and Exts.P3 to P5 complaints of the petitioner by a competent Special Squad of the Crime Branch Wing of the Kerala Police headed by a Superior Police Officer to be constituted for that purpose.” WPC 27312/09 2 2. The petitioner's son died under suspicious circumstances. The 4th respondent treated it as a case of suicide. The petitioner had doubts about the same. He therefore, requested the respondents to investigate into the matter and bring the offenders before law. But his request went unheaded. 3. The petitioner's son Jayasankar was married and he had two children. He was a Mechanic working in a workshop and Mr.Thulaseedharan is the proprietor of the said workshop. It is stated that Jayasankar along with Mr.Sunilkumar, had hired a room in a lodge in Sulthan Batheri, where he occasionally used to stay back, when he had to work late in the night. Jayasankar, son of the petitioner had attended to the work on 18.07.2009. It is stated that at about 6.45 pm on that day, he was attacked by one Mr.Rasheed and his friends. He did not return home on that day nor did he attend the workshop on the next day i.e., on 19.07.2009. On 20.07.2009 his deadbody was found hanging in a bathroom of the rented room in the lodge. The Police registered a case as Crime No.275/09, the FIR of which is produced as Ext.P1. The crime was registered on the basis of the statement said to have been given by Mr.Muraleedharan, the elder brother of Jayasankar. But, according to the petitioner, the WPC 27312/09 3 F.I. Statement drawn up by the Police does not reveal the true state of affairs. It is claimed that the inquest was conducted in a hurry in spite of the objections on the part of the petitioner and others. The petitioner submits that there are certain aspects, which according to him, would clearly reveal that it is not a case of suicide. 4. Disturbed by the hostile attitude of the second respondent, the petitioner moved the third respondent by filing Ext.P4. That also did not yield any result. That compelled him to file a representation before the Home Minister, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5. The petitioner complains that to his knowledge, there has been no meaningful and effective enquiry into his complaint and his grievance remains unredressed and unattended to. The petitioner feels that if the local police investigates into his complaint, it will be only an eyewash. It is under these circumstances that he had sought for the investigation to be handed over to the CBI. 5. As directed by this Court, the Investigating Officer in the case has filed a detailed statement. After narrating the facts of the case, it is pointed out that respondents 1 to 5 whose names are given in the statement, were present at the time of WPC 27312/09 4 inquest. The statement shows that those persons were of the opinion that he had committed suicide due to frustration. They also questioned one Sunil Kumar, who was a witness and who was closely related with the deceased Jayasankar. He has stated that on 18.7.2009, he had gone to the workshop, where Jayasankar was working and thereafter, left the place. He returned on 20.07.09 at about 10 am and found the door of the room of lodge, locked from inside. He knocked at the door, but it was not opened. So, he summoned the neighbours and broke the window glass of the room. They entered the room and saw Jayasankar hanging from the roof. The statement filed, narrates in detail, the various steps taken by the investigating Officer concerned. It is also pointed out that the Investigating Officer had questioned the Medical Officer, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he was of the confirmed opinion that the death was caused due to asphyxia due to hanging. The investigation in the case was over on 31.08.2009 and final report was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mananthawady, it is stated. 6. In the light of the fact that the investigation in the case has been completed and the report is submitted before the WPC 27312/09 5 Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is not possible now to consider the prayers made by the petitioner in this petition. If, as a matter fact, he is aggrieved by the report filed by the Investigating Officer before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, he has to take recourse to such procedures as are available to him in law. Moreover, the contents of the report filed and the various steps taken by the Investigating Officer and its veracity cannot be gone into in this proceedings. Whatever that be, now that the final report has been laid before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is for the petitioner to pursue the remedies available to him in law. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 27312/09 6