IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14349 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAJITH, S/O.SAJEEV, SANAL BHAVAN, RAMANCHIRA, THUMPAMON NORTH MURI, MAHUVELI VILLAGE, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTTA. 3. C.I.OF POLICE, PANDALAM. 4. S.I.OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 14349 of 2008 G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the first accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 427, 380 and 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The F.I. Statement has been lodged by an injured person while he was in the hospital. In the F.I. Statement five named accused and five others identifiable by sight are shown as accused. The crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The third respondent is investigating the crime now. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution may be invoked to direct that the investigation be conducted hereafter by any competent officer other than the third respondent. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the F.I. Statement are W.P.C.No. 14349 of 2008 2 totally incorrect. The petitioner and his brother are shown as accused 1 and 2. They were not involved in the incident at all. The allegations against them are totally incorrect. As a matter of fact, no such incident had taken place at all. Though the third respondent was apprised of these circumstances, he has not so far deleted the petitioner and the second respondent from the array of accused. He is continuing with the investigation. It is hence prayed that the third respondent may be directed not to continue the investigation and the investigation may be entrusted to other competent hands. 4. To a specific query by this Court it is stated that even in the statement made to the doctor recorded in the wound certificate, the petitioner is alleged to be one of the assailants, who had caused injury to the victim. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations raised against the petitioner and the other co-accused in the F.I. Statement or the acceptability of the contention of the petitioner that he was not present at the scene of the incident, which had taken place in some other manner. Suffice it to say that at the moment and with the available inputs, I find absolutely W.P.C.No. 14349 of 2008 3 no warrant to invoke the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Merely because one or some of the contestants feels that the Investigating Officer is not correct in not accepting the version advanced by him, this Court cannot evidently invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct that the investigation be taken away from such officer and be handed over to some other person. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am not persuaded to agree that any direction deserves to be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm