IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29165 of 2010(Q) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AMBADI CHANDRASEKHARAN AGED 75 S/O.GOVINDAN, URUVACHAL,POST CHOWWA, KANNUR-6. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANNUR-6. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR-6. 3. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION(CBI) REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARTHRUKADAVU, KOCHI-17. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,STANDING COUNSEL, C.B.I. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29165 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT An agonized father is before me seeking a direction to entrust the investigation to the CBI since according to him investigation conducted by the local police is not proper and in right earnest. His daughter – Hemaja was married to one Sasindran in the year 2003 and while so, the daughter was found dead with her neck cut in a maruthi omni van on 05.09.2009. Respondent No.2 was quick in registering a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and started investigation. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of investigation being conducted from 05.09.2009 it has not reached anywhere nor to any logical conclusion. Hence this petition. 2. As per the direction the Investigating Officer, Circle Inspector of Police, Kannur City has submitted a detailed statement as to the steps taken in the course of investigation and to book the culprits. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 3. While learned counsel asserted his grievance as stated above and requested for investigation by the CBI, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that statement filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kannur City on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is sufficient in details as to the various steps taken by the police for investigation. In short, what is revealed from the statement of respondent No.2 is that two persons – husband of the deceased and his close WP(C) No.29165/2010 2 friend are suspected in the crime and they have already been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the case. Accused No.2 was arrested by the police but later released on bail. Accused No.1 could not be arrested. Call details from the mobile phones of accused Nos.1 and 2 on the previous day of the incident was taken which revealed that there was constant conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2. The Investigating Officer has stated that prima facie, involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 is indicated but, accused No.1 could not be arrested inspite of coercive proceedings taken under Sections 73, 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). On going through the statement I find that steps are taken by the Investigating Officer in the matter. Having gone through the statement and heard learned counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor I am not persuaded to think that there was any lethargy on the part of the Investigating Officer in probing the matter and bringing the culprits to book. I do not also think that at this stage it is appropriate or necessary to handover investigation to another body which may have the result of affecting the investigation so far conducted. Hence it is appropriate that the present investigating agency continued further investigation. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that respondent No.2 may be directed to complete the investigation within a time frame. I am afraid, in a matter of this nature no such time frame could be fixed since the progress of investigation depends on various matters and no time frame could be made. However I direct respondent No.2 to pursue the investigation with all WP(C) No.29165/2010 3 earnestness and ensure that the culprits are brought to book at the earliest bearing in mind that proper investigation is his duty. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the proper forum again bearing in mind the power of the Magistrate concerned under Section 157(3) of the Code as highlighted by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (4) KLT 724). Petition is disposed of accordingly. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks