IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 28846 of 2010(Q) ---------------------------------------- CMP.NO.1225/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, THIRUVANANTHAPRAM. .... (CR.NO.549/2010 OF FORT POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUDARSANAN VIJAYAKUMAR,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR,RESIDING AT VIJAYA SADANAM, MELUKARA,KOZHANJERY.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SRI.P.G.SURESH, SMT.K.VIDYA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JALAL NASAR,KATTIL VILLA HOUSE, VETTUR.P.O,THENGARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 312. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,FORT POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPRAM. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CB CID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2, R4 TO R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.28846 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner, de facto complainant in Crime No.549 of 2010 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram seeks a direction to the investigating agency to hand over investigation to the CBCID, without further delay and that the investigation may be monitored by this Court. Petitioner preferred a private complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram which was forwarded to the Fort police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police registered Crime No.549 of 2010 for offences punishable under Secs.323, 364A, 384, 386, 387 and 506(ii) r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case of petitioner is that on the day of incident, one Sajan and Sherin approached him claiming to be brokers and offering to sell his Benz car. They invited petitioner to the house of Sajan. They were accompanied by the driver of Sajan, one Kuttan (who is not arrayed as accused in the FIR) as well. Under the impression that petitioner is in possession of more than Rupees One Crore which he obtained by sale of his property the said Sajan and Sherin allegedly with the assistance of Kuttan confined petitioner in a room in the house of W.P(C).No.28846 of 2010 -: 2 :- said Sajan and demanded ransom of `.25,00,000/-. Learning that petitioner is not in possession of any money, the culprits wanted custody of the vehicle and the vehicular documents and sent a person to the house of petitioner to collect the vehicular documents. Petitioner was compelled to telephone to his wife to hand over vehicular documents to the person who went there. Accordingly the vehicular documents were handed over to that person. It is also the case that petitioner was severely assaulted by Sajan, Sherin and others. Petitioner states that apart from registering the case nothing was done by the investigating officer and no effort was made to trace the vehicle. In the meantime, vehicle was taken into custody by the Attingal police but in spite of being informed of that, the investigating officer did not take steps to get the vehicle in custody. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Ext.P9, letter issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal to the petitioner under the Right of Information Act where it is stated that seizure of the vehicle in question was intimated to the Fort police through wireless but, information received from the Fort police was that the said vehicle was not involved in Crime No.549 of 2010. In the circumstances, learned counsel requested that investigation may be handed over to CBCID. Learned counsel submits that even the wound certificate has not so far been collected by the investigating officer. The culprits made use of the W.P(C).No.28846 of 2010 -: 3 :- ATM card of petitioner, collected money from the ATM counter but no attempt was made to check the video tape kept in the ATM counter to ascertain who had collected money from the account of petitioner. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is continuing. 2. In the statement filed by 4th respondent, the Sub Inspector, Fort Police Station it is stated about the investigation he has conducted so far. He states that he made a search in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 but, nothing could be recovered or collected. It is also stated in paragraph 9 that as part of investigation the Sub Inspector had deputed the A.S.I to serve notice on petitioner to produce relevant records and RC particulars of the said vehicle, but in the given address at Pathanamthitta one Haridasan is residing for the last three years. For obtaining RC and vehicular documents a letter was sent to the RTO, Attingal. On 21.08.2010 the vehicle was seized by the Attingal police and was released to one Jalal Nasar on 25.08.2010. Details from the Syndicate Bank and ICICI are to be obtained and investigation is going on the proper way, it is stated. 3. It would appear from the statement that the Sub Inspector has not conducted the investigation in a proper manner. According to the petitioner, he is the agreement owner (Ext.P10 is the copy of the agreement) and he had handed over the agreement W.P(C).No.28846 of 2010 -: 4 :- to the Sub Inspector. The sub Inspector ought to have collected the registration particulars from the registering authority rather than endlessly waiting for a reply from that office. It is also not seen that he has checked the video tape (if any) installed in the ATM counter to ascertain whether on the relevant day somebody had collected money from the ATM counter from the account of petitioner. Instead, it appears that the Sub Inspector is finding fault with the petitioner for not producing relevant evidence before him. It is not clear why, inspite of information received from the Attingal police station the Sub Inspector did not take steps to get custody of the car and instead, informed the Attingal police that the vehicle is not involved in the case. I am not convinced that Sub Inspector has conducted investigation properly. I would like to inform the Sub Inspector concerned that investigation of the case is his duty and not a concession on his part. Investigation cannot proceed in this manner. Better hands must investigate the case. Hence investigation has to be entrusted to a superior officer. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) The Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to issue orders within two weeks from the receipt of a copy of this judgment, handing over investigation of the case to an officer senior in rank to the Sub Inspector, Fort Police Station who is now investigating the W.P(C).No.28846 of 2010 -: 5 :- case. (ii) The officer who is thus invested with investigation shall conduct investigation of the case in the proper manner to find out the truth of the averments in the complaint and reach appropriate conclusion. (iii) Petitioner shall hand over a copy of Ext.P10, agreement and other vehicular records if any to the officer who is invested with the investigation of the case, as early as possible. (iv) If any further direction in the matter of proper investigation is required, it is open to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate concerned with seeking appropriate reliefs as provided under law. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-