IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28210 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJU PUZHANKARA, S/O.LATE SANKARA NARAYANA MENON, AGED 42 YEARS, PUZHANKARA VEEDU, KUNDANNOOR POST, VIA_VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (HOME), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SANKUMUKHOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ...2 -2- 9. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. JOINT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CHENNAI. 11. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KATHRIKKADAVU, ROAD, COCHIN. 12. SRI.SABARINATH, AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.RAJAN CHELLAPPAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'TOTAL 4 YOU', NEAR-MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDENT OF SABARI NIVAS, KURAVANKONAM, KIDANGAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner arraying 13 respondents with a prayer that the investigation into a crime allegedly committed by the 12th respondent may be entrusted to the C.B.I. The petitioner does not even specify the number and details of the crime which he wants to be so entrusted for investigation to the C.B.I. 2. The petitioner explains his interest in the case in the following words in para-19: “19. The writ petitioner is a law- abiding Indian citizen and a firm believer in rule of law. Each citizen of India has a bounden duty to prevent the illegality and violation of law and to respect and obey the legal system and its procedure. W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G -: 2 :- In the circumstances, the petitioner is left no other equally efficacious remedy than to approach this Honourable Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.” 3. This petition has been perused by me in detail. The petitioner has been heard. The learned Public Prosecutor was asked to take notice. The learned Public Prosecutor furnishes the following details: On the complaint given by a specified individual/depositor, Crime No.480/08 of the Medical College Police Station, Trivandrum, has been registered against, inter alia, the 12th respondent. It is alleged in that crime that the offence under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 IPC has been committed. The crux of the allegations is that the de facto complainant/depositor was defrauded by the accused persons. Investigation is in progress. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the crime was registered on 27/8/08. Considering the seriousness of the allegations raised, investigation has now been entrusted to the Crime Branch Police and they have taken over the investigation W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G -: 3 :- from 4/9/08. One Mr.Harinath Misra, IPS., a senior police officer who had served 7 years in the C.B.I., is carrying on the investigation now. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a proper and efficient investigation is being conducted and at this stage there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for transfer of the investigation to the C.B.I. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner has no tangible data or specific material to justify his claim for transfer of the investigation to the C.B.I. The petitioner has not even cared to ascertain the vital and relevant facts and the application made by a person like him, who has no real, substantial, tangible or sublime interest in the investigation of the crime, only deserves to be rejected in limine. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I must, at the very outset, observe that I do not intend to express any opinion on the complicity of any of the accused in that crime who have already been brought on record or who, it is alleged, at the Bar, are also involved in the commission of the crime. But it is impossible not to observe that the petitioner has only made wide W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G -: 4 :- and sweeping allegations without any serious pursuit as would be expected from a public spirited individual who wants to maintain such an application before this Court. I have read the averments in the petition in detail. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Except the nebulous, vague and general information collected by reading the newspapers, the petitioner does not appear to have undertaken any serious effort to ascertain the details of the issues involved or justify his grievance against the investigation. He is not a depositor. He is not interested in any of the depositors. His credentials as a public interest litigant is not even attempted to be revealed. Essentially, the allegation is one of cheating and the petitioner is not a victim of any such cheating also. I need only observe that, at the moment and with the available inputs, I am not persuaded to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution to issue any directions regarding investigation. I do further note that the petitioner has not chosen to move the Magistrate, if he has any specific information/data about the inadequacy of investigation. If he is W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G -: 5 :- a public spirited individual interested in a proper investigation, he must collect tangible data and share it with the Investigating Officers and if he has not satisfied that, they are not interested in pursuing the details furnished by him, he must certainly approach the Magistrate and complain about the inadequate investigation as already held by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) which has been followed by the decision in Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945). I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that this writ petition only deserves to be dismissed. I do so. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 28210 of 2008-G -: 6 :-