Dismissed

Saju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Oct 2019WP(C)/26480/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition where the petitioner, an accused in a criminal case alleged to involve unlawful assembly and rioting, sought directions for reinvestigation by a higher police officer. The court held that an accused cannot dictate the investigating agency and dismissed the petition for rushing to court without waiting for the result of his representation.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition is dismissed as none of the reliefs prayed for can be granted.

Saju Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.26480 OF 2019(H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAJU AGED 26 YEARS S/O. JOSE, VALIYAVILAKIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, KADAKKAD MURI, KOORAMPALA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI SMT.SHAIMA VAHAB SMT.CHINMAI AJITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM 689 501.

¶12

3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ADOOR 689 648.

¶13

4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 647.

¶14

5 STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

SRI S SAJJU-PP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2019, THE COURT ON 22-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.26480 OF 2019(H)

¶18

¶19

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶20

W.P (C) No.26480 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The writ petitioner is the fourth accused in the case C.P No. 27/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor.

¶24

The aforesaid case is based on the charge sheet filed by the

¶25

police in Crime No.14/2019 of Pandalam Police Station. There are altogether eight accused in the case. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 143,147,148,324,326,307 and 302 read with 149 IPC.

¶26

The prosecution case is as follows: On 02.01.2019, a

¶27

procession was conducted by the “Sabarimala Karma Samithi” in protest against the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple. At about 18:30 hours, when the procession reached in front of the area committee office of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), near the Pandalam market, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, pelted stones

¶28

WP(C).No.26480 OF 2019(H)

¶29

¶30

towards the procession. As a result, several persons sustains serious injuries. A person named Chandran Unnithan, who sustained injury in the incident, died on the same day due to the injuries sustained by him.

¶31

The petitioner made Ext.P3 representation before the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta to conduct a reinvestigation of the case. The aforesaid request was rejected by the Superintendent of Police and intimation in that regard was given to the petitioner as per Ext.P7 letter. Thereafter, the petitioner has made Ext.P8 representation to the State Police Chief requesting to conduct a proper investigation of the case, at least to the extent of his involvement therein.

¶32

Now, dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the police in the case, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking certain reliefs. The reliefs sought in the writ petition read as follows:

¶33

“i) Call for the records leading upto Ext.P7 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. ii) Issue writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5^th respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation and take necessary action thereon without further delay. iii) Issue writ of mandamus, or other appropriate

¶34

WP(C).No.26480 OF 2019(H)

¶35

¶36

writ, order or direction, directing the 5^th respondent to probe further into the allegations against petitioner in Crime No.14/2019 in the Pandalam Police Station within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court.

¶37

iv) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

The plea of the petitioner is that he is innocent and that he was not involved in the incident and that he was at some other place at the relevant time.

¶40

The final report filed in the case reveals that many witnesses have identified the petitioner as one among the culprits. In such circumstances, the petitioner has to prove the plea of alibi as well as innocence during the trial of the case.

¶41

Though one of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the State Police Chief to conduct further investigation of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, what the petitioner really wants is further investigation of the case by a high ranking officer or the Crime Branch.

¶42

WP(C).No.26480 OF 2019(H)

¶43

¶44

The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with (See CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi: AIR 1997 SC 93 ). The accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do investigation in a particular manner or for court monitored investigation (See Romila Thapar v. Union of India: AIR 2018 SC 4683 ).

¶45

The petitioner has prayed for issuing a direction to the State Police Chief to consider Ext.P8 representation made by him without any delay. Ext.P8 representation is dated 26.09.2019. The writ petition was filed on 03.10.2019, within a week of sending Ext.P8 representation. The petitioner has rushed to this Court without waiting for the result of making Ext.P8 representation. In such circumstances, I find that it is not expedient to issue any such direction. Even otherwise, there are no circumstances to issue a direction to the State Police Chief to conduct a further investigation or reinvestigation of the case.

¶46

In the light of the discussion above, I find that none of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner can be granted.

¶47

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶49

lsn

¶50

WP(C).No.26480 OF 2019(H)

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO. F.I.R. NO. 14/2019 REGISTERED BY THE PANDALAM POLICE.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.P. NO. 27/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 27.4.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 27.4.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 10.5.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 6.8.19 IN WPC NO. 15186/2019 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. DI- 42199/2019/N DT. 19.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 26.9.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶55

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶56

TRUE COPY

¶57

P.A TO JUDGE

¶58

LSN

Saju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saju 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazeer Vs State

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sahid Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Nizaruddin Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Sreekantan, Vs Valsala