IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6561 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NAZAR @ AYILAM NAZAR, AGE 40, S/O.MOHAMMED SHAFI, THEKKEVILA VEEDU, MYVALLI ELA AYILAM DESOM,MUDACKKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRETOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 101. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTINGAL CIRCLE, ATTINGAL-695 101. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, ATTINGAL – 695 101. 6. MURALI, S/O.SAHADEVAN, MAHENDRA NIVAS, AYILAM JUNCTION, AYILAM DESOM MUDACKKAL VILLAGE- 695 103. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6561 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.1343 of 2010 of Attingal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 427 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, as the case now stands, on 07.11.2010 at about 5.30 p.m. petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, voluntarily caused hurt to him with a chopper demanding `.100/- and attempted to cause his death. Accused No.1 is said to have used a chopper while accused No.2 hit the defacto complainant with a stone. Accused No.3 hit the chest of defacto complainant. Grievance of the petitioner is that nowhere in the statement of the defacto complainant there is any mention about involvement of petitioner in the incident or even about his presence anywhere near the scene of incident. In spite of that, the Investigating Officers (respondent Nos.4 and 5) have falsely implicated the petitioner by incorporating a statement in the case diary that on 10.11.2010 the Police found petitioner at the junction trying to escape on seeing them, he was questioned and he admitted his involvement in the incident. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has filed an application before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram pointing out the statement in the affidavit of defacto complainant that petitioner is not involved in the alleged incident and requesting to handover investigation to some other WP(C) No.6561/2011 2 Police Officer. Learned counsel submitted that merely for the reason that petitioner is involved in certain other cases he is being implicated in this case with ulterior motive. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor. I have gone through Ext.P3, representation submitted by petitioner before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.P4, affidavit allegedly sworn by the defacto complainant where he said that petitioner is not involved in the incident, nor was he any where at the scene of incident. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and going through Exts.P3 and P4 I am inclined to think that what is required is to direct the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram to consider Ext.P3, application submitted by the petitioner. The Officer who is investigating the case shall also look into the complaint of petitioner and the affidavit allegedly sworn by the defacto complainant as to the alleged involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident. Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram is directed to consider Ext.P3, complaint made to him by the petitioner and take appropriate action in the matter. ii. The Officer who is investigating the case is directed to look into the complaint of petitioner as also Ext.P4, affidavit allegedly sworn by the WP(C) No.6561/2011 3 defacto complainant stating that petitioner is not involved in the alleged incident nor he was any where near the scene of incident. iii. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram as early as possible. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks