IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19484 of 2010(Q) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAJI N.M., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, NEDUMALAYIL HOUSE, KATTAMPAKKU P.O., NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKAM ROAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.19484 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22 nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1211 of 2009 of Vaikam Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC, seeks a direction to hand over the investigation of the above crime to any officer superior in rank to respondents 3 and 4 namely Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom and Sub Inspector of Police, Vaikom respectively. 2. If the investigation conducted by respondents 3 and 4 is not on proper lines, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Magistrate concerned. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused along with the petitioner herein concocted non-liability certificate of State Bank of India so as to produce the same before the British High Commission and the petitioner who was assisting the 1st accused W.P.(c)No. 19484 of 2010 2 for preparing the forged documents is absconding. 4. As mentioned earlier if the investigation is not proceeding on proper lines and if the respondents 3 and 4 are not conducting the investigation in accordance with law and the investigation is a tainted investigation, the petitioner's remedy is not to approach this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. His remedy is to move the Magistrate in the light of the decision reported in Thomas V.C Achamma Thomas and another (2009(2) KHC 693) and also in the light of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and others. (2008(1) KLT 724 SC) This writ petition is disposed of reserving the above right of the petitioner. Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj