In a contempt case filed against police officials in Kerala, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that since the investigation was handed over to C-Branch and a supplementary report was submitted, the proceeding amounted to misuse of process.
The contempt case (Civil) is dismissed.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 225 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16467/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER:
SOBHANA , AGED 58 YEARS,
WIFE OF HARIDAS, VELUTHEDATHUCHIRA, SAMIKALLU,
KUDAVECHOOR P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
S.M.PRASANTH
G.RENJITH
R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
T.H.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:
1 MR. ANIL KANT, IPS, FATHER’S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 0102 MR. S. SREEJITH, I P S, FATHER’S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, EANCHAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 0083 MS. SHILPA, IPS, FATHER’S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM -686 0014 MR KRISHNAN POTTI, FATHER’S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (STATION HOUSE OFFICER), VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 1445 MR. BINCE JOSEPH, FATHER’S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (STATION HOUSE OFFICER), CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 531BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA)
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 225 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The contempt case was filed on the allegation of
violation of judgment of this court. The judgment of
this court is extracted below for reference:
“Heard. Going through the statement and the
Case Diary produced, it is clear that there are
several lacunas and laches in the investigation
conducted by the local police. Hence, it is
necessary to investigate the Crime through
another agency, C-Brach, Kottayam. There will be
a direction to that effect. Hand over the
investigation forthwith to the C-Branch,
Kottayam.
Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.”
In furtherance of the judgment, investigation was
handed over to C-Branch, Kottayam. They in turn
investigated the crime and submitted a supplementary
report, it is fairly submitted by the learned
Government Pleader. As such, there is no reason for
maintaining any contempt petition before this court. It
really amounts to misuse of process of this court.
Hence, the contempt case (Civil) is dismissed
accordingly.
Sd/P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
msp
CON.CASE(C) NO. 225 OF 2022
3
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 225/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A |
TRUE COPY OFOF 2020 DATED |
JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO 1646708-04-2021 |
|---|---|---|
Annexure A1 |
TRUE COPY OF01-2021 |
THE WORK AGREEMENT DATED 07- |
Annexure A2 |
TRUE COPY OFTHE HON'BLE M |
THE ORDER IN O.S 171/2021 OFUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA |
Annexure A3 |
TRUE COPY OFCC NO. 121/20 |
THE COMMISSIONER REPORT IN21 BEFORE THE CDR COMMISSION |
Annexure A4 |
TRUE COPY OFREPORT |
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSION |
Annexure A5 |
TRUE COPY OFTHE APPLICANT |
THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BYS |
Annexure A6RESPONDENT ANNE |
TRUE COPY OFOPPOSITE PARTXURES |
THE REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THEIES. |
Annexure II |
True copy of thewas received on1378/2022/ RFSL |
result of examination19/05/2022 vide B1--EKM and 1721-2022-EKM |
|---|---|---|
Annexure III |
True copy of thepolygraph test w |
result pertains with theas obtained on21/05/2022 |
Annexure IV |
True copy of thethe Mobile No.96 |
FSL report pertains to56428730 |
Annexure V |
True copy of thedeceased Jishnu |
browsing history of theHaridas |
AnnexureI |
True copy of thewas received on1666/2022/RFSL E |
report of the experiment19/05/2022 vide No.B1-rnakulam |
Annexure II |
True copy of thewas received on1378/2022/ RFSL |
result of examination19/05/2022 vide B1--EKM and 1721-2022-EKM |
Annexure III |
True copy of thepolygraph test w |
result pertains with theas obtained on21/05/2022 |
Annexure IV |
True copy of thethe Mobile No.96 |
FSL report pertains to56428730 |
Annexure V |
True copy of thedeceased Jishnu |
browsing history of theHaridas |
AnnexureI |
True copy of thewas received on1666/2022/RFSL E |
report of the experiment19/05/2022 vide No.B1-rnakulam |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition filed for non-compliance of the order directing investigation handover to C-Branch, Kottayam, ought to be maintained given the supplementary report submitted.
Sobhana
Mr. Anil Kant
Mr. S. Sreejith
Ms. Shilpa
Mr. Krishnan Potti
Mr. Binije Joseph
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court