IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 79 of 2010() ----------------------- CRIME NO.213/2009 OF VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- THANKACHAN @ JOSE.V.S., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU SWAMI @ SAMUEL, VATTAMAKKAL VEETIL, KUNNAM MURIYIL, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASSERIKKARA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VECHOOCHIRA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.79 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.213/2009 of the Vechoochira Police Station, seeks a direction to hand over the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch Police supervised by a lady superior officer not below the rank of I.G of Police. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. According to the petitioner, his daughter Juby Jose, aged 20 years was kidnapped and taken away by unidentified persons on 2.11.2009 and subjected to gang rape. It was only after the petitioner filed a writ petition for Habeas corpus as W.P(Crl.) No.474/2009 that he got back his daughter who had been raped while in the custody of antisocial elements. According to the petitioner, his daughter was sexually abused after blackmailing her showing nude photographs and it was after the observation by the Division Bench of this court in the above writ petition and direction of the J.F.C.M Court, Ranni under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C that the above crime came to be registered by the local police. Crl.M.C. No.79 of 2010 : 2 : 2. So far the culprits arrayed as accused are one Binu and Nizar. But, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had moved the Magistrate with regard to the investigation of the case by local police. If the investigation by the local police is not proceeding on proper lines or if the local police is taking a partisan or biassed attitude, the petitioner is, in the light of the decision in Sakkiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008 (1) KLT (724) SC] entitled to move the Magistrate for appropriate directions and to monitor the investigation. The petitioner has to move the Magistrate first for redressal of his grievances. In case the Magistrate does not pass orders to ensure proper investigation of the case, then only the petitioner can approach this court. If the Magistrate upon a motion by the petitioner is satisfied that the case wants investigation by the Crime Branch Police, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to entrust the investigation to the Crime Branch Police. This Criminal M.C is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb