Disposed
Sudharsan.K.v, v. the State of Kerala
Kerala HCWP(C)/8344/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No. 8344 of 2019
PETITIONER:
SUDHARSAN.K.V, AGED 60 YEARS S/.O. RAGHAVAN, K.V KANDATHIL HOUSE, EDAKKAD (P.O), KANNUR (DIST)
BY ADVS. SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) SRI.V.R.NASAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF HOME AND VIGILANCE, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 014
WP(C).No. 8344 of 2019
2
7 PRAMODAN C, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. ANANDAN, SREYAS VADAKKETHAYYIL HOUSE, MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM, MUZHAPPILANGAD (P.O), KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR (DIST) PIN 670 663.
8 SUSHAMA K.V, AGED 54 YEARS W/O. PRAMODAN C, SREYAS VADAKKETHAYYIL HOUSE, MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM, MUZHAPPILANGAD (P.O), KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR (DIST) PIN 670 663.
9 SHISNA, AGED 32 YEARS D/O. PRAMODAN C, SREYAS VADAKKETHAYYIL HOUSE, MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM, MUZHAPPILANGAD (P.O), KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR (DIST) PIN 670 663.
SRI.AMJAD ALI, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 8344 of 2019
3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
=========================== W.P(C)No.8344 of 2019
===========================
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2019
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the father of one Smt.Dhanisha, who was found to have committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial home, while she was residing along with contesting respondents 7 to 9, her in-laws, on 07.08.2018 at around 7a.m. During the relevant time of her death her husband, the 6th respondent was in a Gulf coutry, in connection with his job. The marriage of the deceased, with him, was solemnized on 31.03.2016 and a female child was born in that wed lock. On the basis of the unnatural death, the respondent police had registered crime No.454/2018 of Edakkad Police Station u/s.174 of the Cr.P.C. That in the course of investigation, it is alleged by the petitioner that the police was reluctant to add the offence under Sec.304(B) or Sec.306 of the IPC and to conduct a proper investigation in that regard and it is alleged that the death of the petitioner’s daughter was due to the dowry harassment by her husband and
his family member, etc. It is further alleged that on the other hand, for the name sake the police added the offence as per Sec. 498A of IPC alone and
WP(C).No. 8344 of 2019
4
has been conducting the investigation. It is further alleged that the 6th respondent has not been arrayed as accused in the above crime and this caused prejudice to a fair and proper investigation. It is contended that inaction on the part of the police to add her husband in the accused array, would indicate that the investigation is not proceeding in the right direction. That Ext.P-5 chatting history of the deceased with her husband would also show that the death has been caused soon after their conversation. It is alleged that the Investigating Officer has not become ready to examine the proper witness and to seize the pen camera and diary of the deceased, which are very vital materials in the case. That under Sec.304 (B) of the IPC, where the death of a women occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for demand of dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death” and such husband deemed to have caused her dowry death, etc. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:
(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to investigate the case viz; crime No.454/2018 of Edakkad Police Station, Kannur and file charge sheet before the appropriate court having jurisdiction.
WP(C).No. 8344 of 2019
5
And
WP(C).No. 8344 of 2019
6
3rd respondent will pass necessary orders immediately, so as to entrust the further investigation of the case to a higher police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police. It shall also be ensured that a superior officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police should supervise the further investigation to be conducted by the said Inspector of Police. After the commencement of such further investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police concerned will give monthly reports regarding the progress of investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned, who is the superior officer as well as to the 3rd respondent-District Police Chief. The 3rd respondent-Superintendent of Police will also conduct review of the investigation by a joint conference along with the supervisory officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer (Inspector of Police) and may give necessary guidelines and supervisory directions for the effective and fair conduct of the investigation. The various contentions addressed by the petitioner should also be duly taken note of and it shall be ensured that the investigation is conducted in the right and proper directions, so as not to give room for any complaint that there has been any serious lacuna in such investigation. The petitioner will also be at liberty to file appropriate petition before the 3rd respondentSuperintendent of Police pointing out his grievances and those aspects
WP(C).No. 8344 of 2019
7
should also be borne in mind by the 3rd respondent-Superintendent of Police as well as the Supervisory Officer concerned (Deputy Superintendent of Police) and the Investigating Officer at the rank of Inspector of Police, who is to conduct further investigation, as directed hereinabove. All efforts should be taken by the police officials concerned to ensure that the investigation is finalised, without much delay, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment.
With these observations and directions, the above W.P(C) will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
vgd
WP(C).No. 8344 of 2019
8
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR OF CRIME NO. 454/2018 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 174 CR.P.C.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11-08-2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15-10-2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE SISTER OF THE DECEASED, NIMISHA U/S. 91 OF CR.P.C DIRECTING HER TO PRODUCE THE MOBILE PHONE OF THE DECEASED.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHATTING HISTORY IN BETWEEN THE DECEASED AND THE 6TH RESPONDENT “SOON BEFORE HER DEATH” (RELEVANT PAGES)
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29-10-2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION.
Sudharsan.K.V
The State of Kerala
The State Police Chief
Superintendent of Police, Kannur
Pramodan C
Sushama K.V
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court