IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36275 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.J.AUGUSTINE, ATTIPATTIL HOUSE, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, NEDUMKANDAM. BY ADV. SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DIG OF POLICE, KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. ASI OF POLICE, NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION. 5. K.C.RAJU, ADVOCATE, NEDUMKANDAM BAR ASSOCIATION, NEDUMKANDAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BREEZE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C) No. 36275 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 4th January 2008 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 318 of 2007 of Nedumkandom Police Station, seeks a direction compelling the State of Kerala and the Director General of Police to refer the investigation in the above crime to the Crime Branch Police or atleast to the Dy.S.P. of Police, Idukki and to give necessary direction to conduct a fair and proper investigation in the matter. 2. The case of the petitioner can be summarised as follows:- The petitioner is the proprietor of the business concern by name Kerala Trading Company. Petitioner is also a registered dealer of Tamil Nadu Cements at Nedumkandam in Idukki District. One Ismayil Kunju came to the shop of the petitioner and purchased cement worth Rs. 45,000/-. Instead of making W.P.(C) No. 36275 of 2007 -:2:- cash payment, he issued two signed cheques dated 30.09.2001 and 31.01.2002 for Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. When the cheques were presented, they were dishonoured by the drawee bank. The petitioner then approached the 5th respondent, an advocate of Nedumkandom Bar to file cases against the said Ismail Kunju under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The 5th respondent filed TWO cases which were numbered as C.C. No. 684 of 2001 and C.C. No. 123 of 2002. During the pendency of the above cases, the 5th respondent colluded with Ismayil KunJu and accepted Rs. 18,000/- and two signed cheques from Ismayil Kunju. Thereafter without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, the 5th respondent himself prepared a petition for withdrawing the complaints and filed it before court and got the two cases withdrawn. Soon after the withdrawal of the case, the 5th respondent tactfully filed two cheque cases purportedly on behalf of the petitioner by making use of the two cheques obtained from Ismayil Kunju as if the petitioner was the payee under those cheques. Ismayil Kunju to whom summons was issued by the court was not aware of the same and non-bailable W.P.(C) No. 36275 of 2007 -:3:- warrants were issued and repeated by the Magistrate. In the meanwhile, the petitioner went to Kollam and met Ismayil Kunju and it was then that he came to know that the 5th respondent Advocate had cheated the petitioner as also Ismail Kunju. The petitioner filed a Criminal Complaint against the 5th respondent before the J.F.C.M. Nedumkandom alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 417. The said complaint was forwarded to the Nedumkandom Police Station under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the Nedmkandom Police registered Crime No. 318 of 2007 against the 5th respondent. After the registration of the said crime on 11-10-2007, there was no investigation at all and the petitioner was reasonably apprehending that the investigation of the said crime will not be fair and impartial . He therefore, preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Idukki to entrust the investigation to a higher police official but in vain. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the police have after conducting investigation filed a refer report on 30-11-2007 to the effect that the petitioners allegations are false. W.P.(C) No. 36275 of 2007 -:4:- 4. If what is alleged by the petitioner is true, there cannot be a worse crime committed by a person who claims to be a member of the noble profession of law. Now that the police have filed a refer report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. the remedy, if any, of the petitioner is to file a protest complaint to the Magistrate under Sec. 190 read with Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has got an alternative remedy of requesting the Magistrate to conduct further investigation in the matter under 173 (8) Cr.P.C. by some other agency as well. Leaving the petitioner to any of the alternative remedies, this Writ Petition is closed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.