IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32216 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL NISAR K., S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 27 YEARS, THAZHEPUTHENPEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, ANIYARAM P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M .K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.32216 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.793 of 2008 of Thalassery Police Station for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed a private complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery which was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). The Police registered Ext.P1, FIR against persons named in the complaint and started investigation. Petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to respondent No.3, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, “the CBI”) to take over investigation of Crime No.793 of 2008 and submit final report after investigation or in the alternative to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct useful and effective investigation and apprehend the accused in the said crime case and submit final report within a time to be fixed by this Court. Petitioner states that certain other cases also were registered against the accused for similar offence allegation being that the accused introduced a scheme inviting deposits whereby they offered to treat the amount deposited as a deposit of gold on the date of deposit and agreed to return the same quantity of gold as and when demanded with `.1,300/- per month per Rupees one lakh as profit. Accordingly petitioner deposited a total sum of Rupees ten lakhs on 21.02.2007 WP(C) No.32216/2010 2 and 05.03.2007. Investigation has not progressed inspite of lapse of two years. None of the culprits are so far apprehended and relevant records are not seized. So far only seven witnesses were questioned by the Sub Inspector who is investigating the case. It is in the circumstances that this petition is filed seeking reliefs as aforesaid. 2. As directed by this Court, the Station House Officer (the Sub Inspector) who is investigating the case has filed a counter affidavit stating the steps he taken in the matter of investigation. It is stated that proper investigation is being conducted in the matter and that seven witnesses were questioned and their statements were recorded. There are about 20 cases registered for similar offences arraying the same accused persons. It is further stated that the Sub Inspector could not arrest the accused since they are absconding. Moreover, registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies could not be recovered so far in spite of request. Further, relevant records relating to the transaction could not be recovered since the institution is closed and sealed as per the order of learned Munsiff, Thalassery. Accused No.1 in the case obtained anticipatory bail from this Court and while granting anticipatory bail this Court directed the first accused to co-operate with the Investigation, after getting released on bail accused No.1 appeared before the Investigating Officer only once and thereafter he is absconding. As part of the investigation, houses of accused Nos.1 to 7 were searched but the accused were not available in the locality and hence the Sub Inspector could not arrest them. It is also stated that in the meantime accused No.1 settled some of the WP(C) No.32216/2010 3 cases subsequent to registration of crime and that it is gathered that about ten cases were settled and records regarding settlement of five cases were received by the Sub Inspector. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and perused counter affidavit of the Station House Officer (Sub Inspector) who is investigating the case. On going through the counter affidavit, I am not impressed by the manner and effectiveness of the investigation conducted so far. If the accused is absconding, appropriate steps to trace them should have been taken by the Investigating Officer. It is also no answer to say that the Investigating Officer could not get the relevant documents either because office of the accused was closed and sealed as per the order of the civil court or that the Registrar of the Companies did not respond to the requests made in that behalf. It was possible for the Investigating Officer to approach the civil court with appropriate application, get permission and recover relevant documents from the office of the accused. It is distressing to note that inspite of grave crime alleged to be committed, no serious investigation is conducted. It is no solace to the aggrieved parties that during the period of two years, the Sub Inspector has questioned “seven” witnesses. The Sub Inspector appears to have been very much impressed by the fact that some cases were settled by the parties. That is no reason to slow down investigation. Investigating Officers must bear in mind that proper and effective investigation of crimes is not their concession but, their duty to the public, to the country and the law. Investigation cannot proceed in the present manner. I am also not inclined to WP(C) No.32216/2010 4 think that whenever there is some lapse in the investigation the case should go to the CBI. The State Police is competent to investigate any case and, they should be. It is not as if there is dearth of efficient men in the State Police. The appropriate course in the circumstances, is not to direct the CBI to conduct investigation but, direct the State Police to conduct effective investigation into the alleged offence and reach appropriate logical conclusion in the matter as the materials collected in the investigation reveal. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. The Superintendent of Police, Kannur is directed to pass orders within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment entrusting investigation of Crime No.793 of 2008 of Thalassery Police Station and all other connected crime cases to an officer senior in rank to the Sub Inspector of Police, Thalssery who is presently investigating those cases. ii. The Superintendent of Police, Kannur shall monitor such investigation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks