IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17900 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJEEV, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O VISWAMBHARAN, NOW RESIDING AT PRANAVAM VEETTIL, EREZHA SOUTH, MURI KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, FROM BEENA BHAVAN, K.S PURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OACHIRA POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.17900 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the police with threats of false implication in Crime Nos.30 of 2007 and 61 of 2008 of Oachira Police Station. According to the petitioner, the police officers seem to suspect that some thieves had handed over some thieved gold ornaments to the petitioner. The petitioner is being compelled to return such thieved gold ornaments. According to the petitioner, he has not received any thieved articles from any accused persons. He is therefore not in a position to return such allegedly thieved articles which are allegedly in his possession. But he is being threatened that unless he hands over the gold ornament, he will be falsely implicated in serious crimes. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader . The learned Government Pleader denies all the allegations. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is not W.P(C). No.17900 of 2008 2 required to be arrested or interrogated or examined as a witness in Crime Nos.30 of 2007 or 61 of 2008. But the petitioner is required to be interrogated in connection with Crime Nos.279 and 280 of 2008. An accused person was arrested in Crime No.279 of 2008 under Section 41(1)(a) Cr.P.C. His interrogation revealed the commission of offences under Section 392 I.P.C by two accused persons including himself. Accordingly Crime No.280 of 2008 has been registered. The 1st accused who was arrested in that crime admitted that he had committed the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C in collusion with the 2nd accused. The stolen article according to him was handed over to the 2nd accused. The said 2nd accused, the 1st accused informed the Investigating Officer, had handed over the gold ornament to the jewellery of the petitioner herein. The 2nd accused has not been arrested so far. Attempts are being made to arrest him. After he is arrested, he will have to be interrogated to ascertain what he did with the stolen gold ornament. It will have to be ascertained whether the 2nd accused had handed over the thieved gold ornament to the petitioner as he is alleged to have stated to the 1st accused. The veracity of the statement of the 1st accused will have to be ascertained after arresting and interrogating the W.P(C). No.17900 of 2008 3 2nd accused. If the 2nd accused confirms that he has handed over the gold ornament to the petitioner herein, the petitioner herein will have to be further interrogated. The petitioner has already been interrogated. The petitioner asserts that the 2nd accused had not handed over any gold ornament to him. That statement has been recorded. No further proceedings has been taken against the petitioner. The police is trying to ascertain whether the statement of the petitioner to that effect is correct or not. Truth can be ascertained only after the 2nd accused is traced, arrested and interrogated and depending upon the statement of the 2nd accused the petitioner may have to be further interrogated. No decision has been taken as to whether the petitioner has to be arrayed as accused. All that would depend upon the materials collected in the course of investigation. At the moment, the petitioner need not apprehend any further action on the part of the police against him. Attempts are being made to collect further materials. If further materials are collected and such materials point to the need to further interrogate the petitioner or to array him as accused, the needful shall be done, submits the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Public W.P(C). No.17900 of 2008 4 Prosecutor. I am satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition. At the moment and with the available inputs, I am of opinion that there is no necessity to issue any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as to how the investigator must continue to conduct the investigation. Nor is it necessary to direct that the present Investigating Officer be changed and some other police official be entrusted with the investigation in this case. I have no reason to assume that the investigation is not proceeding on the correct line or that the present Investigating Officer is in any way abusing the powers that he has as an Investigating Officer. No further directions are necessary in this case. Needless to say that if the petitioner were required for further interrogation as a witness, the petitioner shall be informed of the same by issuing notice to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C. 4. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-