IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17985 of 2010(Q) ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.9/2009 OF DEVIKULAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.A.UNNI, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.APPOOTTI, MULLAKAPPARAMBIL, PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVIKULAM POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.9/2009 OF DEVIKULAM POLICE STATION). 5. KUNJAPPAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, PUTHAN PURAYIL, VADATTUPARA KARA,KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 6. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, PUTHAN PURAYIL, VADATTUPARA KARA, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE. R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17985 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT This petition is filed by the defacto complainant in Crime No.9 of 2009 of Devikulam Police Station alleging incept and improper investigation and requesting to handover investigation to Crime Branch. Case is that a document purporting to be a sale deed in respect of property belonging to the petitioner was allegedly forged by respondent Nos.5 and 6. Petitioner who is an employee of the civil court at North Paravur filed a complaint to the North Paravur Police Station alleging forgery of the document. North Paravur Police registered the case and transferred the FIR to Devikulam Police who re-registered the case as Crime No.9 of 2009. 2. Respondent No.4, the Sub Inspector of Devikulam has filed a statement detailing the investigation conducted by him and his predecessor in office. It is stated that petitioner (allegedly) transferred the temporary pattayam he obtained in respect of the property to one Kassim as per agreement dated 02.03.1973 for consideration of Rs.2,500/- and agreeing to execute the sale deed when he got the original pattayam. Kassim sold the property to Varghese who in turn sold it to respondent No.6 and his brother, Divakaran. It is stated that petitioner has filed O.S.No.447 of 1992 challenging the impugned document. But the suit was dismissed for default. Later, in the intervention of mediators petitioner is said to have obtained a further sum of Rs.5,000/- from respondent No.5 and executed registered document No.378 of 1998. WP(C) No.17985/2010 2 3. In answer to that statement petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations and asserting that on the day he is said to have executed document No.378 of 1998 he was on duty in the Sub Court, North Paravur and placed reliance on Ext.P1, photocopy of the attendance register. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer has a pre-conceived notion that petitioner executed the documents for consideration and with that notion he is proceeding with investigation which would not yield any result. Learned counsel invited my attention to Ext.P4, the information petitioner has obtained from respondent No.4 under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P4 shows that no expert opinion has so far been obtained as to authenticity of signatures in the disputed documents. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Officer who has filed the counter statement is the successor in office of the Sub Inspector who conducted investigation earlier. I have been taken through the various paragraphs of the statement. It is revealed from paragraph 5 that the statement regarding petitioner allegedly executing the document was made in the light of the information collected by the predecessor in office of respondent No.4. In paragraph 7, it is stated that now the investigation is being conducted by respondent No.4 (the present incumbent in the office of the Sub Inspector) from 30.06.2010 ‘untrammelled by the evidence collected by my predecessor’. He states that he will conduct proper investigation in the matter and that samples collected will be sent to the Finger Print and Handwriting Expert for scientific analysis. 5. Learned counsel wanted me to issue a direction to respondent WP(C) No.17985/2010 3 No.4 to have the opinion of the Experts in the matter. I do not consider it necessary to issue any direction as to what step the Investigating Officer has to take. But, the Investigating Officer has to bear in mind the steps he has to take in a case of this nature where allegation is that the documents have been forged. The Officer himself has taken the decision that samples collected will be sent to the Finger Print and Handwriting Experts for analysis. Certainly the officer will also go into the question whether on the day the document was allegedly executed petitioner was on duty at Sub Court, North Paravur. In view of the above I do not find it necessary to change the Investigating Agency at this stage. 6. However having regard to the apprehension of the petitioner, I direct that the Superintendent of Police, Idukki shall appoint an Officer senior to the Sub Inspector, Devikulam to supervise and monitor the investigation and appropriate orders in that behalf shall be issued by the Superintendent of Police, Idukki within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall make available a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of Police, Idukki. With the above direction and without prejudice to the right of petitioner to approach this Court at a later stage if circumstances warranted, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks