IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29094 of 2010(Q) ----------------------------------------- C.M.P.5461/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL. .......................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PRAKASH, DAS MANDIRAM, ALTHARAMOODU P.O., DARSANAVATTOM DESOM, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 001. 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29094 of 2010 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indian by the complainant in C.M.P.No. 5461/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's court-I, Attingal for a writ of mandamus to consider Exhibit P3 request of the petitioner to grant sanction to prosecute accused 1 and 3 contending that his request was not considered and by Exhibit P4 order, sanction was granted to prosecute the second accused alone, without considering his request to prosecute accused 1 and 3 also. 2. Deputy superintendent of Police, Attingal filed a statement showing the details of the enquiry conducted on getting Exhibit P3 petition for sanction. Copy of the report submitted on enquiry as well as the materials were also produced. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. 4. By Exhibit P3, petitioner sought sanction to prosecute accused 1 to 3. By Exhibit P4 order, sanction WPC 29094/10 2 was granted to prosecute the second accused, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police finding that alleged acts of Additional Sub Inspector were not part of discharge of his official duty. Exhibit P4 order also does not show the authority to grant sanction and considered the request to grant sanction to prosecute accused 1 and 3. It is on that basis, this writ petition is filed. Though the statement filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police with the materials produced show that the question of granting sanction to prosecute accused 1 and 3 were also considered, Exhibit P4 order does not show either that it was considered or rejected. In such circumstances, petition is disposed directing first respondent to consider Exhibit P3 request to prosecute accused 1 and 3 and intimate the decision to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 26th November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv