IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5393 of 2011(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. C.H.ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KAMMADOM HOUSE PEROLE, NEELESWAR.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. C.H. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KAMMADATH HOUSE, PEROLE, NEELESWAR.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. DR. C.H. MUHAMMED AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KAMMADATH HOUSE, PEROLE, NEELESWAR.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGODE 671121 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJANGAD.671101. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARIKKUNDU POLICE STATION.671121 5. A.J.MATHEW, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VELLARIKKUNDU POLICE STATION- 671121 6. ABDUL AZEEZ, POLICE CONSTABLE, VALLARIKKUNDU POLICE STATION- 671 121 R1 TO R4 BY BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5393 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. JUDGMENT It appears that there was some property dispute between petitioners on the one side and their sisters and younger brother on the other side. Petitioners alleged that while so, the younger brother and his men trespassed into the property of petitioners in the presence of respondents 5 and 6, Assistant Sub Inspector and a Constable of Vellarikkundu Police Station and assaulted petitioners. Police registered Crime No.306 of 2010 against petitioners and Crime No.307 of 2010 against some of the assailants (as learned counsel for petitioners would submit). Petitioners submitted Exts.P3 to P6, complaints before respondents 2 and 3 for proper investigation of the crime cases. But, respondent No.2 has ordered re-investigation of Crime No.306 of 2010 only and not Crime No.307 of 2010. Petitioners therefore pray in this proceeding that respondent No.2 may be directed to take appropriate action on Exts.P2 to P6 within a specified time and that respondent No.2 may be directed to constitute a special team of officials to conduct proper and crucial investigation into the matter. Learned counsel submitted that inspite of the fact that petitioners were assaulted by their younger brother and his men in the presence of respondents 5 and 6, even the younger brother is not made an accused in Crime No.307 of 2010. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. WP(C) No.5393/2011 2 2. As submitted before me it would appear that re/further investigation has been ordered by respondent No.2 in Crime No.306 of 2010. If that be so whether or not final report is submitted in Crime No.307 of 2010 it is appropriate that the Officer entrusted with the task of investigating Crime No.306 of 2010 conducted further investigation in Crime No.307 of 2010 also, looking into the grievance of petitioners. Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. It is directed that the Officer entrusted with responsibility to conduct further investigation of Crime No.306 of 2010 shall conduct further investigation of Crime No.307 of 2010 as well referring to the grievance of the petitioners stated in this petition. ii. Necessary orders in that line shall be issued by respondent No.2, the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which shall be made available to respondent No.2 by the petitioners. iii. If in the matter of investigation any further direction is required, petitioners shall approach the learned Magistrate concerned. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks