Allowed

Shylaja v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2746/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mother filed a criminal miscellaneous petition for inefficient investigation into her missing son. The court observed the investigation lacked progress and directed a transfer to an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to oversee the probe earnestly.

What did the court decide?

Investigation in Crime No.249 of 2016 to be handed over to an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Shylaja Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2746 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------CRIME NO. 249/2016 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SHYLAJA, W/O. GOKUL RAJU, AGED 39 YEARS, RAHUL SADANAM, THACHACODU MURI, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU,

¶10

SRI.S.ABHILASH,

¶11

SMT.S.SEETHA.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶14

2. STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM, RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 506.

¶16

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, POOYAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 537.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2746 of 2016

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶23

A-1. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.249/2016 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION.

¶24

A-2. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11/04/2016.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶30

Crl.M.C. No.2746 of 2016

¶31

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

~~~~~~~~

¶34

1.Rahul Raj, an 18 year old Engineering student, doing his

¶35

Course at Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan College of Engineering, Coimbatore, left home after study leave to join his college which was scheduled to reopen on 1.1.2016. The petitioner, who is the mother of Rahul Raj, was informed by his college mate on the next day, that Rahul did not reach the college.

¶36

2.The petitioner rushed to the law enforcement authorities and based on the information furnished her on 9.2.2016, Crime No.249 of 2016 was registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act.

¶37

3.The petitioner laments that the Police have not carried out

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.2746/2016 -2-

¶39

any investigation to trace the whereabouts of her son . It is submitted that the petitioner is a cashew factory worker and all her hopes for the future rested on Rahul Raj . She complains of the lackluster investigation being conducted by the 4^th respondent and her prayer is to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to hand over the investigation to a Senior Officer.

¶40

4.The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain

¶41

instructions.

¶42

5.A statement has been filed by the 4^th respondent on 28.5.2016. In the said statement, it is stated that a team of officials headed by an Additional Sub Inspector of Police had gone Coimbatore and had recorded statements from the College authorities. It is also stated that a lookout notice has been issued and the same has been sent to all the Police Stations in the State. Further, a statement of Avinesh, a friend of Rahul Raj, was taken and his mobile

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.2746/2016 -3-

¶44

phone has been sent to the Cyber cell. It is asserted that a free, fair and proper investigation has been carried out to find out the missing person.

¶45

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit controverting the statements of the 4^th respondent. It is pointed out that the only person questioned is the friend of the missing person and there is no point in sending his phone to the cyber experts . According to the learned counsel , the lethargy of the Police is evident from the fact that the investigation is headed by an Additional Sub Inspector.

¶46

7.I have considered the rival submissions. The statement filed by the 4^th respondent is far from satisfactory. It is evident from the statement that the officer who is presently heading the investigation has not been able to make any headway . I am firmly of the view that an efficient and alert investigation can be carried out only by an experienced officer .

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.2746/2016 -4-

¶48

8.I direct the respondents 2 and 3 to hand over the investigation to an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to oversee the investigation in Crime No.249 of 2016 of Pooyappally Police Station. The said officer is directed to take earnest efforts to trace out Rahul Raj, the son of the petitioner.

¶49

Petition is disposed off as above.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶52

Ps/23/6/16 xxx

Shylaja v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shylaja v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Vs State of Kerala

P.U Jose Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kiran Christepher Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

Abdurasak Vs State of Kerala