IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).NO. 33962 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- CRMP.2823/2003 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRMP.2644/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER --------------- V.RADHAKRISHNAN, KAMCHALAYANN, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. 2. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH CID, ERNAKULAM. 4. ALEX K. JOHN, DY S.P. CRIME BRANCH CID SIG II, ERNAKULAM( FORMERLY THE S.I OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION) BY S.U. NAZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33962 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT Defacto complainant in C.C.No.351/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Aluva is the petitioner. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing second respondent to conduct further investigation of the case, inclusive of comparison of the specimen signatures of the accused and others if any, by a handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory and to direct the learned Magistrate to commit C.C.No. 351/2000 to Sessions Court, Ernakulam, where, S.C. No.124/1996, corresponding to S.C.243/2007 is pending. 2. Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C)No. 31681/2007 for a direction to conduct further investigation after quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate, refusing to order further WPC 33962/09 2 investigation. By Exhibit P4 judgment dated 16.1.2008, this Court directed further investigation, with a direction that it shall be commenced within one month and to be completed within seven months. Thereafter, a supplementary final report was submitted on 24.1.2008 endorsing the findings in the final report. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2544/2009 for further investigation. It was dismissed by Exhibit P6 order. This petition is filed thereafter for further investigation of the case contending that learned Magistrate omitted to take note of the fact that there was no proper investigation. 3. Petitioner was heard in person and learned Government Pleader was also heard. 4. This Court, in Exhibit P4 judgment itself, found that the case has to be investigated properly as the very case of the petitioner is that the signature seen in the F.I. Statement is not his signature and the facts stated therein are not the WPC 33962/09 3 facts disclosed by him and he has a case that it is not only the Head Constable, but police officers, higher ups in rank, are also involved. When the report of the expert shows that the signature of the first informant seen in the FIR prepared by the police is not that of the petitioner, there should have been a proper investigation as to whose signature it is. Signature could be obtained in the FIR only by the officer, who recorded the F.I. Statement. When the signature seen therein is not that of the petitioner, the real author of the signature should have been found out. A proper investigation should have been made to find out whether the signature purported to be that of the petitioner is that of the officer who prepared the FIR or any other police officer. Unfortunately, this aspect was not investigated. If it is found that the signature seen in the F.I. Statement is not that of the officer, who prepared the FIR, it should necessarily be pursued further to find out WPC 33962/09 4 as to whether it is the signature of any other police officer present in the station at that time. These aspects were not properly investigated at all. Interest of justice warrants that further investigation is to be made on these aspects. 5. In such circumstances, third respondent Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Ernakulam is directed to conduct a further investigation as provided under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that further investigation must be directed to find out the actual person who provided the signature in the F.I. Statement, to make it appear that it is the signature of the petitioner. It should also be investigated who are all involved in manipulating the records. Without finding a person who affixed his signature, purporting to be that of the petitioner, investigation will not be completed. Third respondent should make all effort to arrive at the truth, as it affects the very criminal WPC 33962/09 5 justice system as the F.I. Statement itself has been found to be forged. Investigation is to be completed as expeditiously as possible. Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva is directed to stay C.C.No.351/2000 till further investigation is completed. As without fixing the identity of the persons, who all committed the offences, the trial cannot be proceeded, it is not necessary to give any direction as sought for by the petitioner to take action based on Exhibit P6 report. 21st December, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv