IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 25TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 4982 of 2007(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANTONY ALEXANDER, S/O.ALEXANDER, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, MULAVANA VILLAGE, PERAYATHUCHERI, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CB CID SIG I, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.4982 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.194 of 2006 of Kundara Police Station. He is arrayed as an accused along with many other members of his family in that crime. Crime Nos.400 of 2005 and 789 of 2005 also of Kundara Police Station are registered against the close relatives of the petitioner including his brother. The petitioner along with a brother of his had come to this Court and filed W.P(C) NO.6852 of 2006 with a prayer that the investigation into these crimes may be directed to be conducted by a competent unbiased police official. This allegation he raised because he had a grievance that the 6th respondent in the said Writ Petition, one Circle Inspector of Police-Rajendran was ill disposed against the petitioner, he being the relative of an accused who was found guilty and convicted for the murder of the petitioner's father. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition. But in W.P(C) No.1770 of 2006, a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P1 order directed that the investigation be conducted into those 3 crimes by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kollam. The petitioner had also filed complaints before the authorities and enquiry was conducted into such allegations of improper conduct of the police W.P(C).No.4982 of 2007 2 officers by superior officers of the police. Exts.P2 and P3 are notices received by the petitioner in connection with such enquiry. According to the petitioner, such enquiries under Exts.P2 and P3 have now been completed and it is his information that the enquiry officers have come to the conclusion that the powers of the police officers have been misused to unnecessarily proceed against the petitioner and his relatives. 2. What is the grievance of the petitioner now ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain influential officers who are ill disposed to the petitioner are now working in the police Headquarters and the result of enquiry conducted in Exts.P2 and P3 applications may not be revealed at all to the 6th respondent, who is now obliged to conduct the investigation in accordance with the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1770 of 2006 (Ext.P1). He therefore prays that the reports of enquiry prepared and submitted in pursuance of Exts.P2 and P3 may be directed to be made available to the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent may be directed to take due note of such reports while conducting the investigation as directed by the Division Bench in Ext.P1 order. 3. The 6th respondent who has been directed by the Division Bench in Ext.P1 order to conduct the investigation must certainly conduct a proper and efficient investigation. Conduct of a proper and efficient investigation, according to me, would certainly include and W.P(C).No.4982 of 2007 3 oblige the 6th respondent to verify and ascertain for himself the alleged contumacious conduct of the police officers who earlier dealt with these 3 crimes. I have no reason to assume that the 6th respondent will be oblivious to this requirement and would proceed turning a Nelson's eye to such report, if any, submitted in pursuance of Exts.P2 and P3. The 6th respondent, I may reiterate, must alertly apply his mind to all the events that have taken place in this case including the conduct of previous Investigating Officers against which the petitioner raised serious allegations. That is only to ascertain the truth of the allegations which he is obliged to investigate. This would certainly oblige the 2nd respondent to cross check and verify the report submitted by competent superior officers of the conduct of such Investigating Officers. The 2nd respondent must do the same. I have no reason to assume that he will not do the same and it is therefore that I choose to refrain from not issuing any specific direction in this regard. Suffice it to say that I expect the 6th respondent, who is obliged to conduct a proper and efficient investigation to advert to all relevant circumstances including the above. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is taking steps to get copies of such reports by making appropriate application under the provisions of the Right to W.P(C).No.4982 of 2007 4 Information Act. Needless to say, if he receives the same, he can make them available to the Investigating Officer for his perusal. 5. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is, dismissed, without any specific directions, but with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-