IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36604 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ABRAHAM @ JOSE,S/O.ALOYSIUS, THEVALLY PURAYIDAM, KAIKULANGARA WEST, KOLLAM-13,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. JOY ALOYSIUS,AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.ALOYSIUS, ANNAI NIVAS,VADDY,KAIKULANGARA CHERRY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. JAMES ALOYSIUS,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ALOYSIUS,PANDAL VEEDU, PURAYIDOM,VADDY, KAIKULANGARA CHERRY,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SOUTH ZONE),NANDAVANAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM,KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691001. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691001. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST,KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691001. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691006. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) . No.36604 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners are accused in Crime No.786 of 2010 of Pallithottam Police Station. According to the petitioners, respondent No.5, the Sub Inspector who is investigating Crime No.786 of 2010 is colluding with the defacto complainant and others who filed a civil case against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and thus is falsely implicating petitioners in the said crime case to compel petitioners to settle the civil dispute. It is alleged that due to influence of the defacto complainant and others involved in the civil case, respondent No.5 is illegally intervening in the construction of petitioner' residential building. Aggrieved by that, petitioners approached this Court and obtained Ext.P3, judgment against respondent No.5. Prayer in this petition is to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to entrust investigation of Crime No.786 of 2010 of Pallithotam Police Station to respondent No.3 or any other superior police officer having proven integrity and ability and not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 2. This Court directed the Investigating Officer (respondent No.5) to file a counter affidavit. That counter affidavit is not so far filed. But learned Public Prosecutor getting instruction from respondent No.5 has submitted that investigation of the case is completed and final report is filed in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam on 25.11.2010 for offences WP(C) No.36604/2010 2 punishable under Sections 294(b), 452, 354 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioners had given Ext.P5, representation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned to change the Investigating Officer but that has not so far been done. Learned counsel invited my attention to Ext.P3, judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 34368 of 2010. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that a change of Investigating Officer is not required and that investigation was completed and final report is filed. 4. I have gone through Ext.P3, judgment where challenge was to the alleged interference of respondent No.5 with the civil dispute pending between petitioners, defacto complainant and others. When the matter came up for hearing learned Government Pleader submitted that the Sub Inspector will not interfere in the civil dispute between the parties and that he will not also interfere in the matter of petitioners carrying out construction in the manner allowed as per the permit they said to have obtained. That submission was recorded and the Writ Petition was closed leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge registration of crime if so advised. 5. I am not persuaded to think that in the light of Ext.P3, judgment this Court is required to interfere with the matter at this stage. Investigation has already been completed and final report is filed. In that circumstances it is not WP(C) No.36604/2010 3 required to grant reliefs prayed for in this petition. Whatever contentions petitioners have against the manner of investigation conducted by respondent No.5 could be taken up in the trial court at the appropriate stage. Petition is dismissed with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks