IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21357 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THARACHANDY LATHA, W/O.KRISHNAN, LIESURE POINT, MANIKPUR, BARAPUR BASIL ROAD WEST, MANIKPUR P.O., THANA, MAHARASHTRA - 401 202. 2. PETAKANDY RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR, PETAKANDY HOUSE, KOTHERI, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KOYYODAN MADHAVI AMMA, W/O.LATE MANOHARAN, BINDHU NIVAS, KOTHERI, MATTANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KEZHALLUR VILLAGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR) KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 6. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 21357 of 2007-P ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. O R D E R The petitioners are the accused 1 and 3 in Crime No.253 of 2007 registered by the Mattannur Police Station for the offence under Section 465 and 474 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Ext.P1 complaint was filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 consent letter was not presented before the Land Tribunal by the first petitioner and signature of the second petitioner seen in Ext.P2 is not that of the second petitioner and second respondent Sub Inspector of Police who investigated the case insisted for settling the disputes with the first respondent and so the case is to be investigated by the sixth respondent, Director, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau of Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were heard. 3. The crime was registered on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint which discloses offences under Section 465, and 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The question whether the petitioners committed the offences or not is to be decided based on the W.P(C) No. 21357 of 2007-P 2 investigation. If the grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent, the investigating officer has demanded bribe, he has to file a complaint alleging the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no meaning in seeking a direction to entrust the investigation to the vigilance, when there is no allegation of commission of any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence no direction can be issued to the sixth respondent to investigate the case. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that because of the interim order passed by this Court, final report filed could not be filed. In such circumstances, I find no reason to entrust the investigation of case with the sixth respondent as sought for. Investigating officer is directed to expedite the investigation and file a final report without further delay. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the final report, they are entitled to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Sd/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab