Dismissed

R.M.Muraleedharan v. the Vigilance Director

Kerala HC3 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1313/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Criminal Revision Petition challenging an impugned order dismissing an inquiry complaint. The High Court held there is nothing to interfere with the order as respondents were not accused of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed without interference in impugned order.

R.M.Muraleedharan Vs the Vigilance Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1313 of 2016

¶6

ORDER DATED 05-09-2016 IN MP 384/2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO. 256/2004 OF VACB, KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

R.M.MURALEEDHARAN,

¶9

MURALEEBHAVANAM, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.M.MURALEEDHARAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE VIGILANCE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, VAZHUTHAKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINDENTENT OF POLICE, DYSP OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶18

................................................................ CRL.R.P. No. 1313 of 2016 ............................................................... Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the revision petitioner in person.

¶21

The petitioner has got a complaint that some

¶22

criminal cases were falsely foisted against him by certain

¶23

police officers. Ultimately, he had preferred a complaint before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam against the Vigilance Director as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cherthala as respondents. The allegation in the complaint is that the Vigilance Director has not cared to take action against the police officers who had erred in foisting false cases against the petitioner. The same is the complaint against the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cherthala also. In the

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.1313 of 2016

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

complaint, the petitioner has no case that the said respondents have committed any criminal misconduct or any other offences coming under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, through the impugned order the court below has dismissed the complaint with liberty to the petitioner to file a proper complaint, in case of any criminal misconduct or any other offences committed by the public servants. Matters being so, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order and hence this Crl.R.P. is only to be dismissed and I do so.

¶27

In the result, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed.

¶28

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶29

ul/-

¶30

// true copy //

¶31

P.S. to Judge.

R.M.Muraleedharan v. the Vigilance Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.M.Muraleedharan v. the Vigilance Director

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

P.Lekshmanan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ruby Enterprises Vs Jojo Mathew

Chandran @ Chandra Swami Vs State of Kerala

Ranvir Kumar Vs a.C.Preman, Investigating Officer

Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Binu Vs State of Kerala