IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26827 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SMT.SHYAMALA, W/O.RAJAN, POCHAVILA KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU CHERIYELA, ALUMMOODU PO, MUGHATHALA, KOLLAM -7. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.V.LONACHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE HOME SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, CHATHANNOOR. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTIYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26827 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the mother of one Ani who allegedly died under suspicious circumstances on 8/6/2009 seeks a direction to the Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police, Kollam, Circle Inspector of Police, Chathannoor and Sub Inspector of Police, Kottiyam to conduct the investigation of Crime No.454/2009 of Kottiyam Police Station according to law and report the matter to this Court or for a direction to consider the Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner to the Director General of Police and requesting for re-investigation of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner can be summarised as follows:- The petitioner's son Ani aged 25 years was a responsible young man who was not involved in any criminal or anti-social activities until he died. His dead body was seen hanging on a 'Vatta' tree on 8/6/2009. He had returned to his home on the W.P.(C).No.26287/2009 : 2 : previous day evening after work. He was watching the television program for some time during which some of his friends also had joined him. At about 6.30p.m. he had the phone call of one Archana on his mobile phone and then left for the house of one Podichy who is a relative of the petitioner. Thereafter, his dead body was seen hanging on a vatta tree on 8/6/2009. The petitioner suspects that her son was done away with by somebody and then the dead body hanged on the vatta tree to make it appears that it was a case of suicide. Hence this writ petition. 3. The 5th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Kottiyam has filed a statement to the following effect:- The police had questioned thirteen persons including the petitioner and her family members during the investigation of the above crime. But none of those persons had raised any suspicion or had given any hint behind the death of the petitioner's son, Ani. During the stage of investigation one Nalini, a neighbour was questioned. According to her statement at about 3 p.m. on 4/6/2009 she and Ani were seen by a neighbour Bindu lying together and W.P.(C).No.26287/2009 : 3 : seeing Bindu watching them Nailini had shouted and raised a hue and cry and thereupon Ani ran away from her house, that the matter was reported by Nalini to the petitioner and then the said news was widely spread in that area and Ani might have committed suicide on account of humiliation. 4. The petitioners filed a reply controverting the above version and even disputing the statement allegedly given by Nalini. 5. It is too early for this Court sitting in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to come to a conclusion as to whether the investigation thus far conducted by the first respondent is tainted or that the version given by the petitioner is true and probable. This Court cannot go into disputed questions of facts. The proper remedy of the petitioner is to move the Magistrate concerned by a complaint and it is for the said Magistrate to go into the question as to whether the investigation has been proceeding on proper lines and if not, give appropriate directions and even monitor the investigation and if need be to entrust the investigation with a superior W.P.(C).No.26287/2009 : 4 : officer. In the light of the decisions in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP 2008(1)KLT 724 (SC) and Thomas Vs. Achama Thomas 2009 (2)KHC 693 the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Magistrate and not this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move the Magistrate for appropriate relief. This Court shall not be taken as having gone into the merits of the rival versions by the petitioner and the investigating officer. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj