IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 21877 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHRI.SANTHOSHKUMAR LATHIKAVILASOM, THUDAYANNUR PO,KADAKKAL KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT P.C. 3963,NOW UNDER SUSPENSION. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMANDANT KAP 3 BATTALION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ASSISTNAT COMMANDANT OFFICE OF THE IST WING,K.A.P-3 BATTALION ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. I.G.OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.21877 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th September,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of suspension by which taking note of the fact that he is arrayed as accused in two crimes registered against him, one for an offence under Section 376 of I.P.C and another for an offence under Section 498A r/w 34 of I.P.C, he was suspended from service. He sought for revocation of suspension. That has also not been granted. Hence the writ petition. 2. It is contended that criminal cases will not in the normal course of events be proceeded with let alone end in conviction. The prosecutrix in the crime involving Section 376 of the Indian penal Code is the wife of the petitioner and she has given a sworn statement alleging that the earlier version given by her was false. It is up to to the petitioner to see that the criminal proceedings are concluded. If the version given by him is correct, he is at liberty to take appropriate steps in that regard. W.P ( C) No.21877 of 2009 2 In so far as the complaint involving an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a private complaint and obviously since the complainant and the accused are now husband and wife, then it would be open to the petitioner to see that proceedings are terminated without any delay. Respondents cannot be faulted with for not revoking the suspension at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to seek review of the suspension. Once criminal proceedings referred to in Ext.P1 are terminated or such further orders are passed in relation to the same he will be justified in seeking revocation of the suspension. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.21877 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.21877 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.21877 of 2009 5