Disposed

E.P.Siyad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2016WP(C)/34605/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's prayer to transfer investigation of a FIR regarding alleged misappropriation of mosque funds to a senior police officer. Instead, it directed the City Police Commissioner to monitor and supervise the ongoing investigation and ensure final report approval by a Dy.S.P.

What did the court decide?

Directed the City Police Commissioner to monitor and supervise the investigation; final report to be approved by an officer not below Dy.S.P. rank.

E.P.Siyad 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 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34605 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

E.P.SIYAD AGED 40 S/O. PAREED HAJI, EERACKATTIL HOUSE, UNITY ROAD, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO., KOCHI-33 BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.VINOD MS.JENCY SUSAN JOSE SRI.V.SRI NATH SRI.S.ARAVIND

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶10

CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER KOCHI CITY 682011

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, KALAMASSERY. RADDL. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-122016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

:2:

¶14

WP(C).No. 34605 of 2016 (A)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

----------------------EXHIBIT P1; A TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.NO.831/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALAMASSERY.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.25138/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 23.08.2016

¶19

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1506/2016 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶21

//TRUE COPY//

¶22

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶23

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.C. No. 34605 of 2016

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

1.The petitioner is a follower of Islam and he offers his daily prayers at the Puthupallippuram Badar Juma Masjid. He alleges that the Mutavalli of the said mosque, instead of safeguarding the income and properties, is engaged in criminal misappropriation of the cash and assets in blatant violation of his obligations. Raising specific allegations against the Mutavalli and his associates, Exhibit P1 complaint was preferred before the learned Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police. Crime No. 1506 of 2016 of Kalamassey Police Station was consequently registered and the investigation is now in the hands of the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

W.P.C. No. 34605 of 2016 2

¶31

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that investigation presently being conducted by the 3^rd respondent is inefficient and the accused have already been exculpated of all wrongdoing by the said officer without conducting a proper inquiry. Though materials which clearly establish the misdemeanour were placed before the said officer, it was ignored. It is in the said circumstance that this writ petition was filed seeking mainly the following relief.

¶32

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to remove the 3^rd respondent from the investigation of the Exhibit P3 FIR 1506/2016 of Kalamassery Police Station and hand over the investigation of the said case to any senior police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

¶33

3.In the course of proceedings,the Mutavalli and two of his associates , who have been named in the complaint claiming to be interested in the subject matter, have filed

¶34

W.P.C. No. 34605 of 2016 3

¶35

an application to get themselves impleaded in the proceedings , which was allowed.

¶36

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner , the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor .

¶37

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the dispute between Mutavalli and the persons opposing his illegal acts had engaged the attention of this Court in a proceeding instituted by the Mutavalli seeking police protection. It is vehemently asserted that speedy and effective investigation in a criminal proceeding is a right guaranteed to the petitioner . According to the learned Counsel , the investigation is one sided , partisan and utterly insouciant and unless orders are passed, handing over the investigation to a senior officer , the pilfering of pubic money cannot be brought to light .

¶38

W.P.C. No. 34605 of 2016

¶39

¶40

6.The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submits that the investigation is proceeding in a free and fair manner and there is absolutely no reason to hand over the investigation as prayed for.

¶41

7.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents , who got themselves impleaded, submits that proceedings are pending before the WAKF Board and a special officer has been appointed to oversee the functioning of the mosque. The allegations are without basis and according to the learned Counsel , the intention of the petitioner is to create unnecessary problems in the administration of the WAKF . According to the learned Counsel , the allegations raised will not attract any penal provision and the lodging of the complaint is clearly to show the Mutavalli in bad light .

¶42

8.I have considered the rival submissions.

¶43

W.P.C. No. 34605 of 2016

¶44

¶45

9.It is evident from the records that a dispute exists between the petitioner herein and the mutavalli of the Juma Masjid. Whether the allegations are true or are merely raised to harass the accused are not matters of concern at this stage as the investigation has only commenced. I am of the considered view that the contentions raised by the petitioner do not warrant handing over the investigation to a superior officer. The petitioner cannot dictate that a particular police officer should carry on the investigation in the matter. Taking note of the grievance expressed, the 2^nd respondent is directed to issue necessary directions to the Inspector of Police, having jurisdiction, to monitor and supervise the investigation presently being conducted by the 3^rd respondent. The documents in the possession of the petitioner shall be looked into by the said officer and

¶46

W.P.C. No. 34605 of 2016

¶47

¶48

necessary instructions shall be given to the 3^rd respondent. After conclusion of the investigation, the report shall be placed before an officer not below the rank of the Dy.S.P. having jurisdiction over the matter, who shall approve the final report prior to its submission before

¶49

Court .

¶50

This petition is disposed off with the above observations.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶53

SKS

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

P.A. TO JUDGE

E.P.Siyad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.P.Siyad 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

Siddque Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala

Fazil Vs State of Kerala

Reghu Vs State of Kerala

Roby Varghese Vs the State of Kerala