IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2933 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRL.MP.NO.55/2010 IN SC.1171/2009 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- B. RETHAMONY, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, POOTHAKULAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.C.SINOY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 5. SUBHASH, S/O.GOPINATHAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, POOTHAKULAMCHERRY, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 301. Crl.MC.No. 2933 of 2010 6. PRADEEP, S/O.RAJAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, POOTHAKULAMCHERRY, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 301. 7. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.DIVAKARAN, GEETHA FLAT, PARANDAKULAM, POOTHAKULAMCHERRY, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 301. 8. RAJU, S/O.NANU, KALLUVILA VEEDU, POOTHAKULAMCHERRY, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PN-691 301. 9. SULOCHANA, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, GEETHA FLAT-I, POOTHAKULAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM (CW5), PIN-691 301. 10. DEEPU, SANDHYA NILAYAM, POOTHAKULAM SOUTH PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 301. 11. K. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.KUNJU KRISHNAN, SREEMANGALATHU VEEDU, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O., SOUTH PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 301. 12. Y.SHOBHANA, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, SREEMANGALTHU VEEDU, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O., SOUTH PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 302. R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. R8 TO R10 BY ADV. SMT.BABY JOSE. R7 & R9 BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN. R11 & R12 BY ADV. SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2933 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the mother of deceased Sukhi Radhakrishnan, who was found dead in his bedroom on 12.10.2007, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-VII order passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam in Crl.M.P.No.55/2010, filed by the petitioner seeking further investigation of the case under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in Annexure-VI petition, petitioner had narrated (A) to (Q) materials which warrant further investigation and the Investigating Officer did not consider these material aspects and CRMC 2933/10 2 in such circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge should have exercised the jurisdiction under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure to order further investigation. 4. The materials, which, according to the petitioner, warrant a further investigation as stated in Annexure-VI petition filed before learned Additional Sessions Judge, are not seen disclosed by the petitioner when she filed Annexure-II petition before Minister of Foreign Affairs, New Delhi, alleging that there is no proper investigation and therefore, a direction is to be issued for a proper investigation by the Crime Branch. The allegation in Annexure-VI petition is that deceased was hanged by one Pushpan, a partly dumb person, at the instance of respondents 2 to 9. This fact was disclosed to the petitioner by the said Pushapan. It is also alleged that the act of Pushpan was witnessed by two ladies by name Leela and Aparna and they were not questioned by the CRMC 2933/10 3 police. If there was such an incident and either Pushpan had disclosed to the petitioner that he hanged the deceased or Aparna and Leela had disclosed that they had witnessed the incident of the deceased being hanged by Pushpan, in the normal human behaviour, it should be the first ground which would have been disclosed by the petitioner in Annexure-II petition, when investigation by the Crime Branch was sought for. The very fact that it is not mentioned, compels me to discard the said submission. On going through Annexure-VII order, I find no reason to quash the order or to direct further investigation as sought for. Petition is dismissed. 23rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv