Dismissed

Dr Judith Mattakkal Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2023WP(Crl.)/304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction for effective investigation into a matrimonial dispute complaint. Court held that remedy requires FIR registration, which was not done; petition disposed of with liberty to approach court of first instance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of reserving liberty to approach appropriate court of first instance with appropriate complaint.

Dr Judith Mattakkal Jose Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(CRL.) NO. 304 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR JUDITH MATTAKKAL JOSE
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O ANTHONIS MALIYAKKAL, MATTAKKAL, 001, MATTAKKAL,
ANNAMANADA, EDAYATTOR, THRISSUR – 680 741.

¶8

BY ADVS.
NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
PAULY PARIYADAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶11

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISUR (RURAL) – 680 121.

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – SRI. K.A NOUSHAD

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP (Crl). No. 304 of 2023

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶17

…………………...………………………

¶18

WP (Crl). No. 304 of 2023

¶19

………………………………..……………………… Dated this the 05^th day of July, 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner seeks for a direction to conduct an impartial and effective investigation into Exhibit P1 complaint within a time limit.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that, even though enquiries have been conducted pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner since the allegations revealed disputes arising out of a matrimonial relationship, they have not been able to identify the person who is alleged to have unauthorizedly logged in to the petitioner’s google account.

¶23

Even though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the police, the remedy now sought for by the petitioner is for carrying out an effective investigation into Exhibit P1 complaint.

¶24

The remedy so sought for, requires registration of an F.I.R. Since admittedly an F.I.R has not been registered, the petitioner will have to approach the court of first instance with an appropriate

¶25

WP (Crl). No. 304 of 2023

¶26

¶27

complaint, in case she wishes to pursue the matter, as held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2008) 2 SCC 409].

¶28

In the light of the above discussion, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appropriate court, in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶31

Rvm

¶32

WP (Crl). No. 304 of 2023

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 304/2023

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT DATED
15/12/22.

Dr Judith Mattakkal Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Judith Mattakkal Jose 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu.v.R Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government

Ambujakshan Vs State of Kerala

George Antony Vs State of Kerala

S.Kunjappan Vs Food Inspector,Kozhikode

Vikraman Vs the State of Kerala

Prasad Babu Vs State of Tamil Nadu