Partly allowed

Geetha S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2022WP(Crl.)/215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the filing of the final report did not render the prayer for re-investigation infructuous. Suspecting foul play due to discrepancies in recovered gold and cash, the Court directed the District Police Chief to investigate the discrepancies at a higher level.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent (District Police Chief) to look into discrepancies regarding recovered gold and cash and ascertain the correctness of the Ext.P3 affidavit; to order re-investigation by an

Geetha S. Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(CRL.) NO. 215 OF 2022

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

GEETHA S. AGED 44 YEARS S/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN PILLAI M.G, 'GOKUL', ERUVATTUPUZHA, MAMPARA P.O, PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 'PARAMESWARAM', MALLASSERY P.O, PRAMADOM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689646. BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶7

REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

¶8

2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,

¶9

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645.

¶10

3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

¶11

RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689673.

¶12

4 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶13

CRIME BRANCH, (CBCID), PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645.

¶14

5 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE.

¶15

PERINADU POLICE STATION, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689711.

¶16

Sri. HRITHWIK C.S-SR.PP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(Crl)No. 215 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 818 of

¶22

2021 of Perinadu police station registered on 12.08.2021 alleging offence punishable under Sections 457, 461, and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The crime was registered after a housebreaking and theft committed in the residence of the de facto complainant from where, according to the petitioner 31½ sovereigns of gold and an amount of Rs.25,000/- were stolen. The accused is a near relative of the de facto complainant. During the course of investigation seven sovereigns of gold besides Rs.3,14,000/was recovered from the residence of the accused. Altogether, going by the prosecution records, eighteen sovereigns of gold and Rs.6.3 lakhs were recovered on the information furnished by the accused. But according to the petitioner, there are materials to say that the police had actually recovered 28

¶24

W.P.(Crl)No. 215 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

sovereigns of gold from jewellers, besides an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. But actually they have produced only 18 sovereigns of gold and Rs.6,00,000/- before Court. There are materials to say that the accused had spent Rs.2.43 lakhs in a chitty and Rs.75,000/- was expended to redeem a gold loan. According to the petitioner, the police had mismanaged the case, items actually seized during course of investigation have not been produced before Court and serious irregularities have been committed by the Investigating Officers. Thus she wants a detailed investigation conducted by the CBCID or an officer, not below the rank of a Dy.SP.

¶27

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶28

According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor after the filing of the writ petition, on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has already been laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ranni where the case has been taken on file

¶29

W.P.(Crl)No. 215 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

as C.C. No. 44 of 2022. Thus the prayers have become

¶32

infructuous.

¶33

I am not convinced that the prayer has become

¶34

infructuous by virtue of the fact that the final report has been laid. The statement of CW8, K.N. Krishnankutty, s/o. Narayananachari recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. indicates that 18 sovereigns of gold and an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- were handed over to the Investigating Officer. At the same time, Ext.P3 affidavit was happened to be filed when the said Krishnankutty had moved an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the gold ornaments seized from his possession. In Ext.P3 it is stated that he had handed over 28 sovereigns of gold and Rs.9.92 lakhs to the police. But astonishingly enough that much gold have not reached the court.

¶35

Naturally the petitioner, the de facto complainant

¶36

suspects foul play in the matter. In the circumstance, it is only

¶37

W.P.(Crl)No. 215 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

appropriate that the matter be looked into at a higher level. Therefore the 2^nd respondent is directed to look in to the discrepancies if any. The correctness and veracity of the averments in the Ext.P3 affidavit will have to be ascertained. After re-examining the case records, if the 2^nd respondent finds that there was foul play from the part of his subordinates, the case will be investigated again through an officer, not below the rank of Dy.SP.

¶40

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K. HARIPAL

JUDGE

RMV/05/04/

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 215/2022

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 12.08.2021 IN CRIME NO. 818/2021
	OF PERINADU POLICE.
Exhibit P1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED
	12.08.2021 IN CRIME NO. 818/2021 OF PERINADU POLICE STATION,
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 21.08.2021 IN
	CRIME NO. 818/2021 OF PERINADU POLICE STATION,
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 29.09.2021
	SUBMITTED BY K.N. KRISHNANKUTTY.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.10.2021 IN
	CMP NO. 975/2021.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2021 IN CMP NO.
	975/2021 IN CRIME NO. 818/2021 OF PERINADU POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.0.2022
	SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 26.02.2022.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 05.11.2021 IN CRIME
	NO. 818/2021 OF PERINADU POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE S.161 STATEMENT DATED 20.08.2021 OF CW-8
	KRISHNANKUTTY

¶48

TRUE COPY

¶49

P.A.TO JUDGE

Geetha S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha S. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

1. Afzal Khan Vs 1. State of Kerala

Noman Vs the State of Kerala

Jaseer Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Saji L Vs State of Kerala