IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1594 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THOMAS SEBASTIAN, AGED 70 YEARS, ARAYATHINAL HOUSE, PATHAMPUZHA P.O., POONJAR VILLAGE, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.JINU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA-686 121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA-686 121. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1594 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T In this petition, the defacto complainant in Crime No.298 of 2008 of Erattupetta Police Station seeks a direction to respondent no.4 to hand over investigation of that case to any agency other than the local police with a specific direction to complete investigation in a short span of time and a direction to respondent no.1 to take necessary action against respondent no.3 for deliberate delay in the investigation and submission of final report which petitioner alleged, is to favour the accused. Learned counsel submitted that since there was no progress in the investigation, petitioner approached learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-Erattupetta with C.M.P.No.5393 of 2008 and the learned Magistrate as per order dated 29.9.2008 directed respondent no.3, Sub Inspector to conduct proper investigation of the case. He was directed to take into consideration objection raised by petitioner in C.M.P.No.5393 of 2008. Petitioner was 2 W.P.(C).No.1594 of 2011 directed to handover the documents he produced in court to respondent no.3 for further investigation. There was also a direction to him to conduct further investigation expeditiously and to report progress of investigation to the learned Magistrate once in every month. According to the learned counsel, pendency of the civil case is taken as a ruse by respondent no.3 not to proceed with investigation of the case. It is also the grievance of petitioner that inspite of specific direction, respondent no.3 has not given any report to the learned Magistrate as directed in Ext.P4(a) order. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well. If inspite of the direction contained in Ext.P4(a) order, respondent no.3 has not complied with it, it is open to learned Magistrate to take necessary action against the officer concerned as if there is non compliance of the order. I fail to understand why respondent no.3 has not complied with the said order. I direct that respondent no.3 shall comply with Ext.P4(a) order and submit report to learned Magistrate as directed therein. I also 3 W.P.(C).No.1594 of 2011 make it clear that it is open to learned Magistrate to initiate action in the matter as provided under law if the directions in Ext.P4(a) order is not complied. With the above direction, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge ami/