IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 34714 of 2009(Q) --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.40/2006 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION) ............ PETITIONER: ------------------- LAKSHMI W/O.NARAYANAN, VRINDVANAM, CHEPPAD VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.THAMBAN, SMT.THARA THAMBAN, MR.B.BIPIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD, ALPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAREELIAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALPUZHA DISTRICT 6. GOPI S/O.MADAVAN, RESIDING AT MADAVA MANDIRAM CHEPPAD VILLAGE, CHOOLATHERUVU PO. 7. AZEEZ,RESIDING AT ULLASAM, CHINGOLI P.O. W.P.(C). NO.34714/2009: 8. VIJAYAN , SHALIMAR JEWELLERS, CHOOLATHERUVU, MUTHUKULAM, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O. 9. SREEKRISHNAKUMAR, KRISHNAVENI, CHEPPAD KUNNUMMEL, CHEPPAD P.O. 10. VIJAYAN,SABARI,AYIKKADU, CHEPPADU P.O. 11. M.GANGADHARAN, NOONADU VEEDU, CHEPPAD P.O. 12. RADHA, SANKARATHIL VEEDU, CHEPPAD P.O. 13. SATHYASHEELAPANICKER, THOTTUKADAVIL (THANKU BHAVANAM) CHINGOLI P.O. 14. RAVI, MILMA BOOTH MUTHUKULAM VADAKKU,MUTHUKULAM P.O. 15. SAJITH, S/O.SARANGADHAN SANKARAMANGALAM, CHINGOLI P.O. 16. MANMADHAN KAVILPUTHUVAL, MUTHUKULAM THEKKU, ARATUPUZHA P.O. 17. SAKARIA, SAJI SADHANAM, CHOOLATHERUVU, MUTHUKUALAM VADAKKU, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O. 18. DOMANIC, KOCHUMURI PUTHUVEL, CHOOLATHERUVU,MUTHUKULAM VADAKKU, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O. 19. SIVARAMAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, SITHARA, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O, MUTHUKULAM. 20. SUDHAMANI, SITHARA, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O, MUTHUKULAM. 21. ASHOKAN, KALLUMOODU VEEDU,. MUTHUKULAM P.O. 22. CHACKO, THEKKEDATHU THEKKATHIL, VETTUVENI, HARIPAD P.O. 23. RAVEENDRAN, KARIMBANACKAL, MUTTUM, CHEPPAD P.O. W.P.(C). NO.34714/2009: 24. DHARMARAJAN, KILIVIYATHATHARAYIL SUPER MARKET, KEERIKADU P.O. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.34714 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.46/2006 of Kareelakulangara Police Station. Petitioner is the mother of a martyr of Kargil War. In that capacity she was allotted a gas agency of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The gas agency is being run in the name 'Dhanalakshmi Gas Agencies'. According to the petitioner, she appointed sixth respondent, as the Manager and he was running the gas agency on her behalf. Petitioner would allege that in violation of the trust and confidence reposed on the sixth respondent, he entered into a conspiracy with the other accused and forged letter pads, seals and signatures of the petitioner and created various documents like promissory notes, cheques, etc. and misappropriated amount to the tune of above Rupees Fifty lakhs. Finding that offences were committed WPC 34714/09 2 by the accused, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.281/2006 (Exhibit P1) before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Haripad implicating 21 persons. Learned Magistrate sent Exhibit P1 complaint for investigation and Crime No.40/2006 was registered, under Exhibit P2 FIR, for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 408, 467 and 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Exhibit P3 final report was submitted alleging that only the first accused, who is the sixth respondent herein, committed the offences and that too under Sections 420, 406 and 468 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing second respondent to order further investigation by entrusting the investigation to any officer with proved integrity and ability. Petitioner would contend that there was no proper investigation and respondents 7 to 24 were not implicated for the reason that at the time of WPC 34714/09 3 investigation, the alleged forged documents could not be procured as the cheques were produced before the court in the complaints filed by the sixth respondent. Petitioner would contend that, along with Exhibit P4, she has produced some of the forged receipts and if a proper investigation was conducted based on Exhibit P4, the part played by the other accused would have been established and therefore, there should be a direction for proper investigation. 2. Sub Inspector of Police, Kareelakulangara filed a statement stating that investigation revealed that sixth respondent obtained a commission of Rs.10,000/- and obtained deposit of Rupees One lakh from each employee without prior knowledge or consent of the petitioner and those employees were also arrayed as accused and they were excluded from the list of accused later, as nothing could be brought out to prove that they committed the offences. It is stated that it was WPC 34714/09 4 the sixth respondent who collected money from respondents 7 to 24 and it was the sixth respondent who used the cheque leaves of the petitioner and 22 cases are now pending for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and those cheque leaves were not made available for investigation and in such circumstances, the final report was submitted. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that sixth respondent created forged documents, as a result of the conspiracy with respondents 7 to 24 and the forged documents were produced, as if they are genuine, to show that there was huge liability on the petitioner. It is also contended that the cheque leaves of the petitioner were misused by the sixth respondent in collusion with the other accused and forging signatures of the petitioner documents were created. The final report as well as WPC 34714/09 5 the statement of the Investigating Officer reveal that there was no proper investigation as to whether the signatures in those cheques were that of the petitioner or were forged. Even though the final report shows that forged documents were not made available and therefore, respondents 7 to 24 were removed from the array of the accused, Exhibit P4 shows that several receipts and documents were produced by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer contending that those documents were found in the Gas Agency and though they are purported to be executed by the petitioner, they were not executed by the petitioner and they are actually forged documents. Learned Government Pleader submitted that no investigation was conducted on those documents. 5. In such circumstances, it is absolutely clear that there was no proper investigation on the allegations raised by the petitioner. Interest of justice warrants that there should be a proper WPC 34714/09 6 investigation so that all the real culprits are brought before the court to face the consequences. Petition is allowed. Circle Inspector of Police, Haripad is directed to seek formal permission of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct an exhaustive and proper further investigation and submit a report before the Magistrate in accordance with law. Learned Magistrate shall not proceed with C.C.No.130/2007 till a report is submitted after further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 16th March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv