IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14656 of 2011(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.VIJAYA, W/O.CHANDRAN, KALARITHODI HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA POST, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID - (OCW-III), PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3. DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID - (OCW-III),THRISSUR - 680 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, CONSULATE DIVISION, NEW DELHI - 110001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14656 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass. 2. It is claimed by petitioner that her son is undergoing imprisonment for a period of ten years in Kuwait since September, 2004. Ext.P1 (with its English translation – Ext.P1(a)) is produced to support that claim. It is the further case of petitioner that her son at a time when the latter is undergoing imprisonment as aforesaid as been implicated in a case which took place within the jurisdictional limit of the second respondent in the year 2009. According to the petitioner, her son is not involved in the alleged incident. In the circumstances it is prayed that respondents may be directed to conduct a proper enquiry into Crime No.243/CR/090 of CBCID (OCW-III), Palakkad in the light of Exts.P1 and P1(a) referred to above and thereafter to remove the son of petitioner from the array of accused. Learned counsel submitted that though Exts.P1 and P1(a) were brought to the notice of Investigating Officer, he has declined to consider that. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is not as if this Court should issue directions to the Investigating Officer as to who should or should not be arrayed as accused in the case. That is a matter within the realm of investigation. But, it is necessary that the Officer WP(C)No.14656/2011 2 investigating the case has to look into the plea that the son of petitioner, said to be arrayed as accused in the case was undergoing imprisonment in Kuwait during the time the offence is alleged to be committed. Resultantly this petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks