The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to register a criminal case and conduct an enquiry. It held that civil courts cannot issue writs to register crimes or conduct enquiries, and the remedy lies approaching the competent Magistrate.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C). No.11350 of 2016 (P)
PETITIONER(S):
A.HASHIM, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O.KANIYARKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PIRAPPANCODE P.O., VENJARAMODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.ZIYAD
SRI.T.A.PRAKASH
RESPONDENT(S):
...2/-
WP(C). No.11350 of 2016 (P)
:2:
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C). No.11350 of 2016 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE EARLIER COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DAED 27.10.2012.
EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.19608/2014 DATED 9.2.2016.
EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST COMPLAINT SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.3.2016.
EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS OF COMPLAINT SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.3.2016.
EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 5.3.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL
KRJ
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C) No.11350 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated 31st May, 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing 1st respondent to conduct a proper and effective enquiry against respondents 2 to 13 based upon Exhibit P3 complaint submitted before the 1st respondent.”
WP(C).11350/16 -:2:-
a discrete enquiry was conducted by the police on the basis of the complaint and it was revealed that no cognizable offence was disclosed. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the judgment of this Court in Varghese A.X v. State of Kerala and Another
(2014 (3) KLJ 293) wherein it was held that the remedy of a person who is aggrieved by the non registration of a case by the police has to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to register a crime.
I respectfully concur with the view of the learned Single Judge in Varghese A X (supra) . The writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V JUDGE
krj.31/5/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the police to conduct an enquiry or register a crime when a complaint was not acted upon.
Whether the aggrieved person should approach the Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of approaching the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Varghese A.X v. State of Kerala and AnotherExplained¶53
Varghese A.X v. State of Kerala and Another (2014 (3) KLJ 293)
A. Hashim
Sub Inspector of Police, Venjaramoodu Police Station
A.R.Ramsi
Hashim
Reeja
Ashraf
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
