IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23856 of 2009(Q) ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.248/2008 OF KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION. .............. PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KUTTAPPAN @ GIREESAN, S/O.VASU, PARATHODI VEEDU, KATTAYIKONAM P.O., AYIROOPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER S.MOHANAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN RESIDING AT THERIVILA VEEDU, MANGALATHUKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHY P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV, MR.K.K. DHEERANDRA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER), POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23856 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing first respondent to entrust the investigation to a senior impartial officer for the purpose of conducting proper investigation and to direct the second respondent to supervise the investigation. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.248/2008 of Kazhakkoottam Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he is the owner in possession of 4.04 ares of property in Sy. No.522/10-1 of Kazhakkoottam Village, obtained as per Document No.3802/2000 dated 12.12.2000. While he has been in possession of the property, he had to go abroad where he was working and in his WPC 23856/09 2 absence, a sale deed was executed by impersonation on 13.9.2006 and got it registered as Document No. 3748/2006 of Sub Registrar Office, Kazhakkoottam. It is contended that the accused shown in Exhibit P1 complaint were responsible and the case is not being properly investigated and in such circumstances, the investigation is to be entrusted to a senior officer and it is to be supervised by the second respondent, Superintendent of Police. 3. Third respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, filed a statement stating that on investigation by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kazhakkoottam, passport of the petitioner was seized and it is clear that when the document was executed, he was not in India and first accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Court as per order dated 17.12.2008 and during the course of investigation, it was found out that second accused, Sub Registrar, registered the document accepting the identification made by the WPC 23856/09 3 identifying witnesses and therefore, he was removed from the array of the accused. It is also stated that the original document was seized as per mahazar dated 28.1.2009 and the witnesses were questioned and it is revealed that it was the second accused, who impersonated as the petitioner and executed the document and got it registered in furtherance of the common intention with the first accused and the specimen signature and finger print of the second accused were collected and sent for examination and the report is awaited and in such circumstances, the investigation is in the proper direction. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 5. Learned counsel argued that even though the statement filed shows that second accused was impersonated as the petitioner, the report submitted before the learned Magistrate does not show that an offence under Section 416 of Indian WPC 23856/09 4 Penal Code was committed. It is stated that the Sub Registrar has only acted upon the identification made by the two identifying witnesses and as they would definitely be liable, they were not implicated as the accused and it is clear that there is no proper investigation. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case was investigated properly and the second accused, who was impersonated as the petitioner, is already apprehended and his signature and thumb impression were sent to the expert for comparison with the thumb impression seen in the original document and subsequent, a report was received from the Finger Print Expert to the effect that the thumb impression seen in the forged document is that of the second accused. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that on questioning the identifying witnesses, it was revealed that they are persons, who are there to attest the documents and earn their livelihood and in such WPC 23856/09 5 circumstances, they were not implicated as the accused. 7. On the facts, as is clear from the statement filed by the third respondent, I do not find any necessity to entrust the investigation to any other officer as sought for. But, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that proper investigation is not carried out. If the Sub Registrar has acted upon the identification made by the identifying witnesses and the person identified by them as the executant is the second accused, they are also liable. In such circumstances, third respondent is directed to conduct a proper and exhaustive investigation of Crime No.248/2008 of Kazhakkoottam Police Station and submit a final report in accordance with law. Petition is disposed. 17th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv