The petitioner sought quashing of a final report and directed prosecution or transfer of investigation to the CBI. The court granted permission to withdraw the writ petition and dismissed the matter accordingly.
Permission allowed to withdraw the writ petition; the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.17838 OF 2012(S)
PETITIONER/S:
MADHU PARUMALA, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA PANICKER,RESIDING AT PONVELIL,PARUMALA.P.O – 689 626,MANNAR,THIRUVALLA.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.C.P.JOHNY (ERNAKULAM) SMT.N.M.SHEENA DAS
RESPONDENT/S:
W.P.(C) NO. 17838/2012
: 2 :
7 DR.M.VIJAYAN (RTD,PROJECT OFFICER,RCH,SUB PROJECT OFFICE,KOZHIKODE),RESIDING AT GANGOTHRI.P.O,CHEVARAMBALAM,KOZHIKODE – 673 306).
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR R1, R7 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
R1 TO R3 BY SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU, SR. GP R4 BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG R7 BY SRI.T.RAJENDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO. 17838/2012
: 3 :
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2021.
JUDGMENT
S. MANIKUMAR,CJ.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:
passed the following order:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
respondents 1 to 3 not to file the final report without impleading
W.P.(C) NO. 17838/2012
: 4 :
respondents 6 and 7 as accused in the charge sheet to be filed before the Vigilance Court. The filing of charge sheet would be in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the Code. If enough material is pointing out fingers at any particular person and if they are excluded being a party to the criminal case, it is always open to the complainant or any other person to bring to the notice of the Court and seek for addition of parties as accused as contemplated in Criminal Procedure Code.
With these observations we dismiss the I.A.11855/2012.”
Today, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission is granted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
Madhu Parumala
State of Kerala
The Director Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
The Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau
Union of India
Central Bureau of Investigation
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
