Disposed

Ganeshan V.C v. State

Kerala HC2 Nov 2010Crl.MC/3805/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam granted a petition filed under CrPC Section 482 by accused in a 498A and 306 case. The Court directed the Magistrate to adjourn the case for further investigation, directing the police to consider the deceased's suicide note. The Court also ordered an inquiry by the Superintendent of Police into the suppression of the suicide note.

What did the court decide?

Directing the investigating officer to conduct further investigation taking into consideration the statement of the deceased in the suicide note and the Magistrate to adjourn the case till a final rep

Ganeshan V.C Vs State — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3805 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶8

--------------------------------------

¶9

1. GANESHAN.V.C., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VASU, KINARULLATHIL, MUJUKUNNU P.O., KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

2. MALLIKA V.C., AGED 60 YEARS, W/O VASU, KINARULLATHIL, MUJUKUNNU P.O., KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

3. SUJATHA, AGED 36 YEARS,D/O VASU, KINARULLATHIL, MUJUKUNNU P.O., KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

4. YATHINDRA DAS V.C., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.VASU, KINARULLATHIL, MUJUKUNNU P.O., KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

5. KUNJIPENNU, W/O.OTHANAN, AGED 70 YEARS, VADAKKECHATHOTT, CHINGAPURAM P.O., THIKKODI VIA, KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶16

-------------------------------------------------------------------

¶17

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶21

=========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3805 OF 2010

¶22

===========================

¶23

Dated this the 2^nd day of November,2010

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are the accused in C.P.29/2010

¶26

on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Koilandy taken cognizance for the offences under section 498A and 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First petitioner is the husband and second petitioner the father of the first petitioner and petitioners 3 and 4 the brother and sister of the first petitioner and 5^th petitioner the grandmother of the first petitioner. First petitioner married Vinitha on 10.5.2004. She committed suicide on 14.3.2010 at about 5.30 p.m by jumping in front of a running train at Vengalam Railway gate along with her four year old daughter causing the death of the mother and the daughter.

¶27

Crl.M.C.3805/2010 2

¶28

Crime was originally registered under section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure as an unnatural death. Subsequently after investigation, Annexure

¶29

1 final report was filed alleging that she committed suicide because of the cruelty meted out to her by the petitioners. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R and the final report contending that the investigating agency did not properly investigate the case and the suicide note left behind by the deceased was suppressed and was not taken into consideration and the suicide note will establish that death of Vinitha was not due to any cruelty as alleged by the prosecution.

¶30

As it is contended by the petitioners that

¶31

deceased had left behind a suicide note, Public prosecutor was directed to get proper instruction. Learned Public Prosecutor based on the instruction, made available the suicide note left behind by deceased Vinitha and submitted that the suicide

¶32

Crl.M.C.3805/2010 3

¶33

note was kept inside the hand bag which was seized from the scene of occurrence. It contained gold ornaments and it was returned to the brother of the deceased without taking note of the fact that suicide note was also there. The suicide note is

¶34

to the effect that Vinitha committed suicide of her own will and nobody else is responsible.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that based on the suicide note death of Vinitha could only be an ordinary suicide and not the result of any cruelty meted out to her as alleged by the prosecution and therefore the final

¶36

report has to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that based on the suicide note alone it cannot be concluded that an offence under section 498A was not committed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the suicide note shows that she was distressed and it could only be due to the cruelty meted out to her by the husband and his relatives.

¶37

Crl.M.C.3805/2010 4

¶38

Whatever it be, it is a matter which should

¶39

have been properly investigated. As it is not disputed that there was no investigation based on the suicide note, it is necessary to direct the investigating officer to conduct a further investigation taking into consideration the statement of the deceased in the suicide note also.

¶40

As rightly pointed by the learned counsel

¶41

appearing for the petitioner, in the light of Annexure 2 communication sent by the Sub Inspector of Police, Koilandy to the Nodal Public Information Officer, when a copy of the suicide note was applied for, shows that the Sub Inspector was aware of the suicide note. Annexure 3 the kaichit executed by the brother of the deceased while the bag inclusive of the articles in the bag were returned to him, shows that each of the items in the bag was mentioned. But the suicide note was

¶42

not mentioned in Annexure 3. If so it cannot be relieved when Annexure 3 kaichit was executed by

¶43

Crl.M.C.3805/2010 5

¶44

the brother of the deceased and the bag and other articles were returned to the brother of the deceased, the Sub Inspector was not aware of the existence of the suicide note. It cannot also be said that he was unaware of the relevancy and importance of the suicide note. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that the Sub Inspector by mistake or by oversight returned the suicide note to the brother of the deceased, as is now being submitted. In any way it is a matter to be inquired by the superior officer. In the nature of the case the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode is directed to conduct an inquiry on whether the Sub Inspector of Police suppressed the suicide note or was culpably negligent. If he is found guilty, appropriate action is to be taken.

¶45

Petition is disposed directing the

¶46

investigating officer to conduct further investigation under section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure after intimating the Magistrate.

¶47

Crl.M.C.3805/2010 6

¶48

The investigating officer shall take into consideration the statement of the deceased in the suicide note, along with the other materials, which may point out the guilt of the accused and submit a final report as provided under section 173 (8). The learned Magistrate shall adjourn the case till a final report is submitted.

¶49

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶50

tpl/-

¶51

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶52

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶53

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶54

SEPTEMBER,2006

Ganeshan V.C v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganeshan V.C v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhya Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Sidheek Vs Food Inspector

Eorge K.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Kumar Vs State

Mr.Mansoor.M.a and Other Vs Abdul Basheer and Others