IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34353 of 2007(M) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. N. VENU KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHTALEKSHMI, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD. 2. M. VENU, S/O. MADHAVAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, NANGIARKULANGARA MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, O/O. THE DGP, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, O/O. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, O/O. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, O/O. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA. WP(C).No. 34353 of 2007(M) 2 6. T.K.G. PANIKAR, S/O.KOCHUPILLA PANICKER MITTUKOTTAGE, AKAMKKUDIMURI, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O. HARIPAD. 7. M. SURESH, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, EERICKAL KALEEYICKAL, PALLIPAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O. ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.O.D.SIVADAS FOR R7 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.HRITHWICK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.34353 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21 st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners namely N.Venu Kumar and M.Venu are respectively the de facto complainant in Crime No.81 of 2006 of Haripad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 465,467,471 and 193 IPC and Crime No. 348/2005 of Mavelikkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 468,471,196 and 511 of 420 IPC. Their main prayer in this writ petition is to hand over the investigation of the aforesaid two cases to a police officer of higher rank outside Alappuzha district. 2. The allegation made in Crime No.81/2006 of Haripad Police Station is that the 1st accused therein who is the 6th respondent herein namely T.K.G.Panikar who was also the accused in an earlier case namely C.C.No.172/2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Haripad, which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had produced W.P.(c)No.34353 of 2007 2 Exts.D1 and D2 forged letters and Suresh, the 2nd accused herein had produced Ext.D3 forged receipt in the said C.C.case and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 465,467, 471and 193 IPC. 3. The allegations in Crime No.348/2005 of Mavelikkara Police Station initiated at the instance of 2nd petitioner was that the aforesaid T.K.G.Panicker had forged two promissory notes and produced the same in a civil suit pending before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 468,471,196 and 511 of 420 IPC. 4. Crime No.348/2005 was investigated by the Circle Inspector of Police, Mavelikkara who finally laid the charge before the J.F.C.M, Mavelikkara on 13.11.2007 against the said T.K.G.Panicker who was shown as absconding. Crime No.81/2006 of Haripad Police Station was investigated by the Circle Inspector of Police, Haripad and charge was finally laid on 20.11.2007 before the J.F.C.M-II, Haripad against the said T.K.G.Panikar and Suresh. Both of them were shown as absconding. Exts.D1 to D3 in C.C.No.172/2003 referred to above were the three questioned documents. Those documents were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, W.P.(c)No.34353 of 2007 3 Thiruvananthapuram, during the investigation of Crime No.81/2006. The opinion of the expert was to the effect that the hand writings and signatures in all the three documents were not that of Venu Kumar, the 1st petitioner. Similarly, the two promissory notes forming the subject matter of Crime No.348/2005 were also forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for an opinion regarding the handwriting and signatures of the 2nd respondent. The expert opinion in that case was also to the effect that the handwriting and signatures are not that of the 2nd petitioner/Venu. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the aforesaid questioned documents were produced at the instance of the said T.K.G.Panikar who is the 1st accused in crime No.81/2006 and sole accused in Crime No.348/2005 but the investigating officer did not question the said T.K.G.Panikar, but instead had shown him as absconding in both the charge-sheets. According to the petitioner it is on account of the collusion between Investigating Officer and the said T.K.G.Panikar that he has been shown as absconding. According to the petitioner, T.K.G.Panikar referred to above is an accused in yet another case registered as Crime No.255/2004 of Haripad Police Station and he had appeared W.P.(c)No.34353 of 2007 4 before the J.F.C.M -I, Haripad on 25.10.2007 and had obtained bail. Similarly, in the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, taken on file as C.C.No.172/2003 by the J.F.C.M-I, Haripad, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the said T.K.G.Panikar had undergone imprisonment till the rising of the court in compliance of the said direction. It is such a person who is shown as absconding. There is every reason to conclude that failure to interrogate T.K.G.Panikar by the Investigating Officers in the aforesaid two crimes is deliberate since the said T.K.G.Panikar was really available, though eluding the Investigating Officer and the process of the court. No useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the final reports in both the crimes without questioning the said T.K.G.Panikar. 6. Eventhough this Court had initially as per judgment dated 21.1.2008 entrusted the investigation of the above crime with the Crime Branch of Police, the said T.K.G.Panikar, who is the 6th respondent in this writ petition and who had chosen to remain ex parte before this Court, challenged the said judgment before the Division Bench of this Court and as per judgment dated 20.11.2009 the Division Bench set aside the judgment of W.P.(c)No.34353 of 2007 5 this Court and had directed this Court to dispose of the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunities to all the parties including the said T.K.G.Panikar. After the remit, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent was granted time to file a counter in case he chose to do so. In spite of several adjournments, no counter affidavit has been filed. The attempt appears to be a dilatory tactics to remain dormant and to make his presence felt only when some adverse orders are passed against him. 7. I am satisfied from the records that the Officer in charge of the investigation of the above two crimes is not going to furnish any assistance to the Court since he seems to be hand -in-glove with the said T.K.G.Panikar. Interrogation of the said T.K.G.Panikar is inevitable for eliciting useful information regarding the person or persons who had forged the questioned documents in C.C.No.172/2003 and in the civil suit before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. The said T.K.G.Panikar who was shown as absconding in both the charge sheets and who was evading the process of the court made his presence felt when he wanted the sentence in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be reduced to one of imprisonment till the rising of the court. Likewise, after the W.P.(c)No.34353 of 2007 6 earlier judgment he made his presence felt by filing a writ appeal before the Division Bench. I am, therefore, of the view that the investigation of the case should be entrusted with a senior officer preferably from the District outside the Alappuzha district. Accordingly, 2nd respondent Director General of Police is directed to entrust the investigation with a sufficiently senior and responsible officer of the Crime Branch Police preferably located outside Alappuzha district to conduct further investigation of Crime Nos.51/2006 of Haripad Police Station and 348/2005 of Mavelikkara Police Station. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the 2nd respondent for information and compliance. The Investigation files of the above crimes shall be entrusted with the Officer to be chosen by the 2nd respondent within one month from today. This writ petition is allowed as above. Dated this the 21 st day of July, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj The figure “51/2006” occurring in line 9, page 6 (paragraph 7) of the judgment dated 21.07.2010 in W.P.(C)No.34353/2007 is deleted and substituted by the figure “81/2006” as per order dated 05/08/2010 in I.A.No.10821/2010 in W.P.(C).No.34353/2007