The High Court disposed of a criminal mercy petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking directions for a DIPS investigation. Noting the prior order obliging the Magistrate to monitor the probe, the Court held the petitioner should approach the Magistrate instead.
Petitioner granted liberty to approach the learned Magistrate; the petition is disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932
Crl.MC.No. 3540 of 2010()
--------------------------------------
CRIME NO.744/2007 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION.
PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
------------------------------------------------------------
V.GOKULAN, GOKUL NIVAS, CULB ROAD, KOTTAYAM , REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY VINOD G.PAI,S/O.GOKULAN, GKULAN HOUSE, TEMPLE ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM -1
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S): STATE- COMPLAINANT
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB CID,OCW-11,KOTTAYAM SUB UNIT HEAD QUARTERS AT ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
--------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3540 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 1st October, 2010
O R D E R
Petition is filed under Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the
second respondent to complete the investigation after custodial interrogation of the accused and seizure of the forged Power of Attorney
within a time limit and entrust the
investigation to an officer not below the rank of DIG of Police.
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
2/12/2008, this Court handed over the
investigation of Crime No.744/2007 to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police with a
direction that he shall submit periodical
Crmc 3540/10 2
reports every month and first report shall be filed on or before 1/1/2009 and the learned Magistrate shall monitor the investigation and issue appropriate directions from time to time. Petitioner thereafter filed W.P.C.26476/2009 contending that the investigation is not being properly conducted and therefore, the investigation is to be handed over to the Crime Branch. By Annexure-III judgment dated 29/10/2009, this Court directed Director General of Police to hand over the
investigation to Crime Branch with a direction that it may be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. While Deputy Superintendent of Police was investigating, accused 1 and 2 got anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court by Annexure-IV order. Annexure-V statement and Annexure-VI order of the learned Magistrate
Crmc 3540/10 3
show that Investigating Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, CID, OCW-II, Ernakulam sought permission of the Court to conduct polygraph test and it was allowed subjected to the condition that it could be done only if accused are willing. It is thereafter this petition is filed. Petitioner has to approach the learned Magistrate as held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008 (1) KLT 724 ) if he needs any direction with regard to the investigation, as Annexure-II order itself shows that learned Magistrate has to monitor the investigation. In such circumstances, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate, petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
Crmc 3540/10 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the police to conduct a custodial interrogation and entrust the investigation to a DIG, or if the petitioner should approach the Magistrate monitoring the investig
If the Magistrate is already monitoring the investigation as directed by an earlier order, whether the High Court needs to intervene.
Whether a petition under Section 482 CrPC should be disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate first.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.PReferred¶38
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008 (1) KLT 724)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gokulan
State of Kerala
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
