IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 31298 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJAMMA, D/O.THRESSIA, ULAKKAPANHANJI VEEDU, PARASUVAKKAL P.O PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPT., GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, PHQ, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31298 OF 2007 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is the wife of a person who was found to have died due to hanging on 29.11.05. The petitioner's marriage with the deceased was solemnized on 10.9.2001. About the death of the petitioner's husband, an enquiry under section 174 Cr.P.C. was conducted, after registering a crime as crime No.842/05 of Parassala police station. Enquiry was conducted by the police and after being satisfied that it was a case of unnatural death, final report was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Long later, the petitioner has come to this Court on 10.10.07 with the grievance that no proper enquiry has been conducted. 2. According to the petitioner, no proper steps have been taken by the police to ascertain the real cause of death. According to her, as a matter of fact, it was a case not of suicide but of murder of her husband. 3. The petitioner has not lodged any formal complaint. WPC.31298/07 : 2 : No crime has been registered. No private complaint has also been filed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner's grievance about the improper investigation cannot be entertained by this Court in the light of the decision in Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309]. A statement has been filed by the 5th respondent, who had conducted the enquiry under section 174 Cr.P.C. I find no reason at this stage to interfere with the conclusion of the said officer, who conducted the investigation. No directions for investigation to the police need also be issued in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no specific allegation of commission of any cognizable offence raised before the police or the learned Magistrate. It is for the petitioner to raise appropriate grievance before the appropriate authorities. No further directions need, in these circumstances, be issued. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks