IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1255 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.598/2009 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION) ............ PETITIONER: ------------------- AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.PALLIYALIL AHMED MUSAIYAR, AGED 44 YEARS, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLILA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1255 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the complainant in Annexure-B private complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, which resulted in the Magistrate forwarding the complaint to the Manjeri police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and ending in the registration of Crime No.598/2009 of Manjeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 107, 419, 420, 464, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC, seeks a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram and the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram to change the investigation of Crime No.598/2009 from the 1st respondent Sub Inspector of Police to a higher Senior Police Officer. 2. The case of the petitioner can be summarised as follows:- The petitioner along with one Mohammed Shafi purchased an item of immovable property from one Chandrasekharan and his wife Pushpaja as per document No.5401/2007 of SRO, Manjeri. Subsequently it was known that one Abdul Azeez has filed a suit as O.S.No.49/2008 before Crl.M.C. No.1255 OF 2010 : 2 : the Munsiff Court, Manjeri against the said Chandrasekharan and his wife Pushpaja and one Alavikutty (the vendor of Chandrasekharan and his wife Pushpaja) for a declaration that the complainant Abdul Azeez is the owner of the property and for recovery of the same with ancillary reliefs. On reading the plaint in the aforesaid suit filed by the Abdul Azeez, the petitioner came to know that he was cheated by the said Chandrasekharan and his wife Pushpaja and their vendor Alavikutty and that even the 1st accused, Abdul Azeez was acting in collusion with them. 3. The present grievance of the petitioner is that even though Malappuram police registered the above crime, no headway has been made in the investigation and the investigation thus far conducted by the 1st respondent Sub Inspector of Police is tardy and ineffective. Hence this writ petition. 4. The 1st respondent Sub Inspector of Police has filed a statement in which it is inter alia stated that since the 1st accused Abdul Azeez, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.49/2008 is in the Gulf country, the Sub Inspector of Police was not able to Crl.M.C. No.1255 OF 2010 : 3 : question him and since the civil suit filed by the 1st accused is pending before the Munsiff Court, Manjeri, he has not been able to complete the investigation and that a final report cannot be filed without questioning the 1st accused. 5. Much strain is not necessary to conclude that the investigation conducted by the 1st respondent is a mere apology for investigation. The first and foremost thing to be enquired into is as to whether the 1st accused Abdul Azeez who is abroad, was at the relevant time also in the Gulf. This can be verified even without questioning him by examining the original documents. According to the 1st accused / Abdul Azeez, he has not executed the sale deed dated 12.7.2002 in favour of Alavikutty, the vendor of Chandrasekharan and his wife and that the above document was brought into existence through impersonation at a time when he was in the Gulf. No effective questioning has been done with regard to the vendors of the petitioner as well as their vendor. Even though the signatures of the 1st accused / plaintiff are available in the plaint, affidavit, vakalath etc. in the suit filed by him, no attempt has been made to compare these signatures with Crl.M.C. No.1255 OF 2010 : 4 : those in the disputed sale deed dated 12.7.2002. Under these circumstances, I do not think that the 1st respondent should be allowed to continue the investigation of the above crime. Accordingly, the investigation of Crime No.598/2009 of the Manjeri Police Station shall be transferred to the Circle Inspector of Police, Manjeri, who shall immediately take over the investigation and conduct further investigation of the above case in an effective manner and file a report within three months of receipt of the investigation records. This Criminal M.C is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb