A John v. the Director General of Police
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner challenged investigation laxity regarding a conspiracy/cheating case. Respondent counsel submitted the case was transferred to Vigilance for sanction. The Court closed the petition recording submissions but reserved the petitioner's right to approach the Court later if aggrieved.
What did the court decide?
Petition closed recording submissions with right to approach the Court later reserved.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 35843 of 2016 (E)
PETITIONER(S):
A JOHN AGED 79 YEARS, S/O. ANDHIRA, MEMBERSHIP NO.2949, PALLIMUKKAM, KUDUVILA P.O., EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 502.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNDARA CIRCLE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 501.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the laxity of investigation is meritless given the transfer of the case diary to Vigilance for government sanction.
Whether the petition is closed or requires disposal of the factual dispute raised by the petitioner.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
A John
- respondent
The Director General of Police
- respondent
The Superintendent of Police Kollam District
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court