Allowed

Geethu Das v. Director General of Police

Kerala HC20 Dec 2022WP(C)/5322/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by the wife of the accused in a domestic violence case where the FIR and final report were based on Section 498A IPC. The Court found an incident involving a knife injury attracted Section 324 IPC but omitted in the final report due to unreliable doctor statements. It directed further investigation.

What did the court decide?

The Station House Officer, Kadakkavoor Police Station is directed to conduct further investigation.

Geethu Das Vs Director General of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶4

WP(C) NO. 5322 OF 2016

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

GEETHU DAS, AGED 30 YEARS D/O.GURUDAS, PALACHARUVILA HOUSE, SREENARAYANAPURAM, OTTUR, MOONGODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695144.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAGADEESH SMT.V.RENJU SRI.R.SURESH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695605.

¶12

4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695306.

¶13

BY SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 5322 OF 2016

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed to give a direction to the 1^st respondent to entrust the investigation in Crime No.1595/2015 of Kadakkavoor Police Station with a higher police official not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or by the Crime Branch and further to direct the 2^nd respondent to supervise the investigation.

¶19

The petitioner herein is the wife of the accused in Crime No.1595/2015 of Kadakkavoor Police Station. Initially, crime was registered by the Kallambalam Police Station as Crime No.1648/2015 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 of IPC on the basis of the complaint preferred by the petitioner herein. Thereafter, crime was transferred to Kadakkavoor Police Station and re-registered the crime as Crime No.1595/2015. The 4^th respondent conducted the investigation and filed the final report against the petitioner alleging the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC alone.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the offence under Section 324 of IPC is also involved, the Police did not charge the said offence in the final report.

¶21

¶22

WP(C) NO. 5322 OF 2016

¶23

I have heard Sri.K.Jagadeesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

I went through the FIS. There is specific allegation in the FIS that in the first week of April, 2009, the accused with the help of his mother, gave a cut with a sharp knife on the left hand of the petitioner, as a result of which, the median nerve on the palmar side of her left hand carpal was cut and she sustained heavy bleeding and bruises. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner was hospitalized at Janaki Clinic, Kadakkavoor for about 25 days. Ext.P4 Medical Treatment Certificate would prove the same. The said statement given by the petitioner is sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 324 of IPC. However, Section 324 of IPC was not incorporated. It appears that it was on the basis of a statement given by the Doctor, who treated the petitioner, that Section 324 of IPC was not incorporated. The Doctor gave a statement to the effect that the persons, who accompanied the petitioner at the hospital, told him that the cut injury was sustained by an accident. But it is relevant to note that in the statement given by the petitioner to the police, she categorically stated that after the attack made by the accused, she felt unconscious and she cannot say who took

¶25

WP(C) NO. 5322 OF 2016

¶26

¶27

her to hospital. The so called persons, who accompanied the petitioner at the hospital, were not questioned by the Police.

¶28

In the circumstances, I am of the view that even though the offence under Section 324 of IPC was attracted, it was not incorporated by the Police. Hence, further investigation is necessary in this case. Accordingly, the Station House Officer (SHO), Kadakkavoor Police Station is directed to conduct further investigation in Crime No.1595/2015 in the light of the observation made in the judgment and file a supplemental report in accordance with law.

¶29

This Writ Petition (Civil) is Allowed.

¶30

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶31

¶32

WP(C) NO. 5322 OF 2016

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5322/2016

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 14.11.2015.

¶37

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DATED 16.12.2015.

¶39

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL TREATMENT LEAVE CERTIFICATE, DATED 08.04.2009.

¶40

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 17/11/2015.

Geethu Das v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geethu Das v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeev Vs the Station House Officer

Maneesh S.K Vs State of Kerala

Sudheendraprasad Vs the State of Kerala

Mishrija K Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dr.K.K.Ramachandran Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kalajayan Vs Minimol