Dismissed

Edwin Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2024WP(Crl.)/38/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition sought a direction to transfer the investigation into a crime linked to a fatal road accident to the State Crime Branch. The Court rejected the petition, holding that the ongoing investigation appeared fair and unbiased, and mere allegations could not justify interference.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking a direction to entrust the investigation to the State Crime Branch was dismissed as it had no merit.

Edwin Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(CRL.) NO. 38 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.567/2023 OF Kodanad Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 EDWIN JOSEPH

¶8

AGED 56 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH ODATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLARPADAM P.O., MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682504

¶9

2 V.R. MATHEW AGED 70 YEARS, S/O RAPHEAL, VAIKKATHUSSERY, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682504 BY ADVS. SRI.SUSANTH SHAJI SRI.SIDHARTH O. SRI.ALBIN A. JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS' CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001

¶12

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001

¶13

3 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY KERALA FORESTS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001

¶14

4 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

W.P.(Crl.) No.38/18

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695014

¶18

5 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF

¶19

KERALA STATE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695010

¶20

6 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT GENERAL OF POLICE KERALA STATE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695010

¶21

7 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

¶22

ERNAKULAM RURAL, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, SUB JAIL ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101

¶23

8 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶24

KODANAD POLICE STATION, VALLAM, PANAMKUZHI, ROAD, KURICHILAKODU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544

¶25

9 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶26

KODANAD POLICE STATION, VALLAM, PANAMKUZHI, ROAD KURICHILAKODU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544

¶27

10 C.T JOSE AGED 52 YEARS,S/O JOSEPH, CHIRAKKAL ITHRAKKARAN HOUSE, KARUKUTTI VILLAGE, PANTHAKKALKARA, PATHUVAPURAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683576

¶28

SRI. T.R. RANJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

W.P.(Crl.) No.38/18

¶32

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶33

W.P.(Crl.) No.38 of 2024

¶34

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2024

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioners seek a direction to entrust the investigation of Crime No.567/2023 of the Kodanad Police Station to the State Crime Branch.

¶37

The sons of the petitioners were riders on a bike bearing registration No. KL-05-CJ-3760 on 02.11.2023. The said bike is alleged to have collided with a pick up van bearing registration No.KL-01-CX-3424 and a crime was registered at the behest of the 1^st petitioner as F.I.R No. 567/2023 of Kodanad Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶38

The Kerala Forest Department owns the said pick-up van. Petitioners allege that subsequent to the accident and while undergoing treatment, the second petitioner's son succumbed to his injuries on 02.11.2023. According to the petitioners, the crime has been registered contrary to reality. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the pick-up van belonging to the Forest Department and not due to the rash driving of petitioners' children, as alleged in the F.I.R. and hence, an effective and impartial investigation is required in the

W.P.(Crl.) No.38/18

-:4:-

circumstances.

The Investigating Officer and the Divisional Forest Officer have filed separate statements. As per the statement of the Investigating Officer, the investigation is going on and it was revealed that the driver of the scooter bearing registration No. KL-05-CJ-3760 was one Mr.Jude, the son of the 2^nd petitioner, and that due to his rash and negligent driving, the motorbike rammed into the vehicle of the Forest Department. It was further stated that the photographs and the videos of the crime scene and detailed investigation revealed the above factual aspects and that the investigation is being conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.

¶43

In the statement of the Divisional Forest Officer, it is stated that the documents relating to the vehicle of the Forest Department are all up to date, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the son of the 2^nd petitioner. It is also stated that the accident occurred on the northern side of the road, and the driver of the department vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle made every effort to give medical assistance to the victims and even took them to the nearest hospital in the available vehicle and had kept the department vehicle, which is involved in the accident, at the site of the accident itself.

¶44

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the documents.

¶45

The learned Public Prosecutor made available the photographs

¶46

W.P.(Crl.) No.38/18

¶47

-:5:-

¶48

taken from the place of the incident. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced, I am of the view that, since the investigation is still pending, this Court cannot interfere with the process of investigation being carried on. No materials are made available by the petitioners to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation being carried on by the investigating officer. Mere apprehensions or allegations without any basis cannot be a ground to interfere with an investigation. The F.I.R filed at the behest of 1^st petitioner itself indicates a different story, contrary to that the petitioners are now projecting.

¶49

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with an ongoing investigation must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of any material to doubt the credibility of the nature of the investigation, the Court would seldom interfere. The circumstances do not reveal any instance where this Court must exercise the inherent power to interfere.

¶50

Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

vps

W.P.(Crl.) No.38/18

-:6:-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 576/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE KODANAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL

¶59

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 567/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE KODANAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL

¶60

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CLINICAL SUMMARY & DISCHARGE RECORD DATED 03.11.2023 ISSUED TO SRI.HENIN BY DR.AJAX JOHN, DEPARTMENT OF NEUROSURGERY, LITTLE FLOWER HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ANGAMALY

¶61

Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 09.11.2023 ISSUED TO SRI. HENIN @ JOSEPH HENIN EDWIN BY DR. GEORGE K. JOSEPH, DEPARTMENT OF MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, SPECIALISTS' HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM

¶62

Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEATH SUMMARY OF JUDE RAHUL MATHEW DATED 02.11.2023 ISSUED BY DR. THARUN KRISHNA B.S., DEPARTMENT OF NEUROSURGERY, APOLLO ADLUX HOSPITAL, KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY

¶63

Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶64

Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶65

-:7:-

¶66

W.P.(Crl.) No.38/18

¶67

Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT

Edwin Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edwin Joseph 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

Anju Vs Vikas

Mohammed Midilaj Vs State of Kerala

Prabeesh P.v, Vs State of Kerala

Shiju.S Vs State of Kerala

Sabarigireesan Vs State of Kerala

Jamsheel C Vs State of Kerala