IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 29635 OF 2010(Q) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ INDIRA, W/O.SUDHAKARAN,AGED 36, CHINNU VILASOM, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE S.P.OFFICE, KOLLAM 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM 4. RAJIVI @ IKADUMVETTU RAJIVI LEKHA VILASOM THAZHAMMAL, ANCHAL 5. SURESH, S/O.SISUPALAN, RESIDING UNDER ANCHAL POLICE STATION,ANCHAL P.O., BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.29635 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R A Jeep belonging to the petitioner was gutted in fire some time between 22.5.2010 and 23.05.2010. Suspecting involvement of respondents 4 and 5, petitioner gave information to the Anchal police based on which the latter registered Ext.P1, FIR in crime No.500 of 2010. Petitioner has a grievance that in spite of specifically mentioning the names of respondents 4 and 5, police did not record their names in the FIR and instead mentioned in the FIR that the culprits as identifiable persons. Since petitioner was not satisfied with the manner of investigation she preferred Ext.P2, complaint to the Home Minister alleging that Rajeev, Sumesh and two other identifiable persons are involved in the incident. Later she preferred Ext.P4, complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of that complaint the police registered Ext.P5, FIR in crime No.681 of 2010 for offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Grievance of petitioner in this proceeding is that in spite of the above, there is no proper investigation of the case W.P(C) No.29635 of 2010 -: 2 :- conducted by the Sub Inspector, Anchal (respondent 3) and hence investigation has to change hands. 2. As directed, respondent 3 has filed a counter statement stating the investigation conducted so far. He states that crime No.681 of 2010 has been clubbed with crime No.500 of 2010 and investigation was conducted but no clue as to the offender could be obtained. In paragraph 8 of the counter he stated that allegations made by petitioner against respondents 4 and 5 are not correct and made due to previous enmity. Further in the same paragraph he stated that scientific investigation is on and that result of scientific investigation is not so far received. To that counter statement petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that Sub Inspector has jumped into conclusion that respondents 4 and 5 are not involved, even before getting the scientific investigation report. Learned counsel submitted that the said stand of respondent 3 is sufficient to direct investigation of the case to be carried on by another senior officer. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is being carried on in the proper line and that senior officers are busy with a number of cases under investigation. 3. It is true that in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit respondent 3 has made a statement as if respondents 4 and 5 W.P(C) No.29635 of 2010 -: 3 :- are not involved. But I do not think it as a final conclusion which respondent 3 has reached after investigation of the case. For, investigation is not concluded and that officer is yet to get result of scientific investigation. In that situation I do not consider it necessary at this stage to direct that investigation be taken over by another officer. But I direct respondent 3 to proceed with the investigation on getting report from the scientific expert notwithstanding any pre-conceived notion as to the involvement or innocence of any of the suspects. Let him investigate into all aspects of the matter considering the objection of petitioner also, uninfluenced by the statement in paragraph 8 of his statement. I also make it clear that if necessary it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court on a later stage seeking appropriate reliefs if circumstances warranted. In the matter of issue of directions to the investigating officer as provided under law, petitioner can approach the Magistrate concerned. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of with the above direction and observation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv