IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 37322 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICERS, SRI.K.V.ANIL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) K.I.VELAYUDHAN, WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, RAVIPURAM, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI.BOBY JACOB, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.37322 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The short grievance of the petitioner, Canara Bank, is that no proper investigation is being conducted into Crimes 353 of 2007and 846 of 2007, both of Kottayam West Police Station, in which the bank is the defacto complainant. Obviously, before the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] , notice was ordered and two statements have already been filed by the Investigating Officer. Such statements reveal that a proper investigation has been conducted and final report can be filed as soon as the accused is arrested and he is interrogated-of course, after taking any further steps that may be necessary. The accused is absconding and is not available for arrest now, it is submitted. Every effort is being made by the Investigators to secure the arrest of the petitioner, submits the learned Government Pleader. 2. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary in the matter. I may further observe that if the petitioner feels that any further inadequacy exists in the W.P(C).No.37322 of 2007 2 conduct of the investigation, the petitioner can invoke the dictum in Sakiri Vasu as explained in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945] and seek appropriate directions from the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-