IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35933 of 2004(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.V.UNNI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VIBHAKARAN, CHOLIYHATHARA HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER), ERNAKULAM. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E.T.NORTH, ERNAKULAM. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 7. JACOB @ JAMES, S/O.VARGHESE, THURUTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERANELLUR. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.35833/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RC BOOK OF KL7/N 8433. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.MP.1661/2004 ON THE FILE FO THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE I, ERNAKULAM DTD. 2.12.2004. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 4.12.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.35933 of 2004 C -------------------------- JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing third respondent or any other superior police officer to investigate Exhibit P2 complaint forwarded to the Station House Officer, Ernakulam Town North Police Station by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam and to recover bus KL-7/N 8433 and to direct first respondent or any other police officer of similar rank to enquire into the complaint placed on record by the petitioner through Exhibit P3. 2. Petitioner would contend that he, being a member of the Scheduled Caste, is the registered owner of bus KL-7/N 8433, operating on the route Kumbalangi South-Chittor Ferry and it was purchased from the seventh respondent under an agreement and on 27.11.2004, petitioner was summoned by Sub Inspector of Police, Cheranelloor and asked him to pay more amount to the seventh respondent towards the value of the bus and when he refused to pay, Sub Inspector threatened WPC 35933/04 2 him with dire consequences and on 1.12.2004 at about 7.45 a.m., seventh respondent and his men trespassed into the bus, threatened the driver and committed theft of the vehicle near Vaduthala and when the matter was informed to Ernakulam North Police Station, they refused to register the case and hence, on 2.12.2004, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged that case is not being properly investigated and on 4.12.2004, petitioner, along with one Wilson, met fourth respondent at his office and then petitioner was abused and threatened. Hence, he filed Exhibit P3 complaint. It is also not being enquired. 3. When the writ petition was admitted, this Court directed third respondent, Commissioner of Police to seize the vehicle and keep it in police custody and also to make an enquiry on Exhibit P3 complaint and submit a report within two weeks. The vehicle was seized and by order dated 21.12.2004, this Court directed Commissioner of Police to produce the vehicle before the Magistrate directing the Magistrate to pass WPC 35933/04 3 appropriate orders, for release of the vehicle. Commissioner of Police, thereafter, filed a report on 28.4.2004 stating that incident did not take place at Vaduthala but at Cheranelloor and the enquiry revealed that the incident alleged against the fourth respondent is not correct and the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent is of civil nature and therefore, a refer report has already been submitted before the Magistrate. Separate statement is also filed before this Court by the Commissioner in the writ petition. 4. In the light of the reports submitted by the Commissioner, as directed, based on the enquiry and also on the statement of the Commissioner that a refer report has already been submitted before the Magistrate, this petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. 30th November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv