Dismissed

Geetha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024WP(Crl.)/45/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus for re-investigation of a police case. The court held that while the police failed to act on an initial complaint, the identical allegations were subsequently investigated. The court found no material difference between the complaints and determined that the investigation was adequate, denying the request for re-investigation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Geetha Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

W.P.(CRL.) NO. 45 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEETHA AGED 53 YEARS W/O. SASEENDRAN, SREE SADANAM, PANAYIL , KOTTATHALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK , KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 507.

¶8

BY ADVS. C.R.JAYAKUMAR NOBEL RAJU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 014.

¶12

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM,PIN-691 506.

¶13

4 THE STATON HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM,PIN-691 506.

¶14

5 MOHANAN AGED 57 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, CHITTICHINKALA VEEDU, PANAYIL, KOTTATHALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM-691 507.

¶15

¶16

W.P.(Crl) No.45 of 2022

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY SMT.SEENA C., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

¶19

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

W.P.(Crl) No.45 of 2022

¶22

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶23

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶24

W.P.(Crl.) No.45 of 2022

¶25

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2024

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

In this writ petition filed un der Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to order a re-investigation by a competent police officer in Crime No.970 of 2021 of Kottarakkara Police Station.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader .

¶29

The essential grievance of the petitioner is that the

¶30

crime was registered on the basis of a complaint which he did not actually submit. The complaint the petitioner has submitted is Ext.P1. It was acknowledged by respondent No.3 on 18.02.2021. But respondent No.3 did not take any action on that complaint. Ext.P2 is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.970 of 2021. It is seen that the said crime was registered based on a complaint purported to have been

¶31

¶32

W.P.(Crl) No.45 of 2022

¶33

submitted to the Chief Minister of Kerala by the petitioner. A copy of the said complaint is appended to the FIR. A covering letter issued from the office of the District Superintendent of Police, Kollam Rural forwarding therewith the complaint is also appended to Ext.P2. The complaint was in turn sent to the Station House Officer for further action. It was in the said manner, Ext.P2 crime was happened to be registered.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the answer given from the office of the District Superintendent of Police, Kollam Rural, to an application under the Right to Information Act, it was specifically answered that only one complaint was received from the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, if the said statement is correct, Ext.P1 alone is the complaint received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kollam Rural and the complaint appended to Ext.P2 is a forged one. It is further submitted that the statements seen recorded under Section 161 of the Code and appended to the final report submitted in Crime No.970 of 2021 are manipulated ones. On

¶35

¶36

W.P.(Crl) No.45 of 2022

¶37

a perusal itself, it is apparent that those statements were created without questioning the witnesses, including the petitioner. It is pointed out that the purported statement of the petitioner is a signed one, which is in violation of the provisions of Section 162 of the Code. Similarly, the statements of charge witnesses Nos.2, 3 and 4 appended to the final report indicate that they were not witnessed the occurrence. They have only hearsay information about the offending acts. By citing those witnesses alone, the possibility of proving the charge is eluded. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a case where there occurred such glaring lapses on the part of the investigating officer, and therefore, a re-investigation is absolutely necessary.

¶38

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that unless a complaint was received in the office of the Chief Minister, such a complaint could not have been forwarded to the 3^rd respondent. Further, the allegations in Exts.P1 and P2 complaints are quiet same. When there is no material difference between Exts.P1 and P2

¶39

¶40

W.P.(Crl) No.45 of 2022

¶41

complaints, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the same are the assertions in the final report as well as in the statements recorded by the police during the investigation. All the available witnesses were examined, and they are cited as witnesses. It is accordingly submitted that the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that there was no proper investigation.

¶42

As stated, the allegations in Exts.P1 and P2 complaints are more or less similar. True, in Ext.P4 reply, given from the office of the 3^rd respondent, the receipt of the complaint dated 18.02.2021 alone is mentioned. Regarding the receipt of Ext.P2 complaint, there is no mention in Ext.P4. That inconsistency can well be explained. Ext.P2 complaint was received in that office as forwarded from the office of the Chief Minister, and therefore, the said inconsistency cannot necessarily lead to a conclusion that no such complaint was submitted by the petitioner. It is especially so since there are no material differences between Exts.P1 and P2 complaints.

¶43

¶44

W.P.(Crl) No.45 of 2022

¶45

Indisputably, the 3^rd respondent did not take any action based on Ext.P1, which was received in his office as early as on 18.02.2021. There is dereliction on the part of the 3^rd respondent and his office in that regard. But that is not a sufficient reason to direct a re-investigation in the matter. Based on the identical allegations contained in Ext.P1, Ext.P2 crime was registered. The said lapses on the part of the 3^rd respondent cannot be made good even by a re-investigation or a further investigation. Therefore, for that reason, a writ of mandamus as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶46

The petitioner's grievance is that the witnesses, who witnessed the incident of the accused abusing and harassing the petitioner, were not cited by the prosecution. Going through the statements of charge witnesses Nos.2 to 4, the said submission is correct to a certain extent. It may be noted that either in Ext.P1 complaint or even in the writ petition, it is not stated as to who were the witnesses saw the offending acts. It cannot be held in that situation that the investigating officer omitted to examine the witnesses who

¶47

¶48

W.P.(Crl) No.45 of 2022

¶49

would have seen the commission of the offending acts. From the materials on record, it can only be said that the investigating officer took possible steps in the matter of investigation and collected materials and evidence that could possibly be collected.

¶50

In the circumstances, a re-investigation in the matter is not warranted. Hence, the writ petition can only fail. In the event of her having a grievance that all the offences are not included in the final report, and the occurrence witnesses were omitted, she can file a complaint. In the event of filing such a complaint, it is for the Magistrate to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶54

dxy/dkr

¶55

¶56

W.P.(Crl) No.45 of 2022

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 45/2022

¶58

PETITION	ER EXH	IBITS
EXHIBIT	P1	THE TRUE 18.02.2021	COPY OF	THE PETITION DATED
EXHIBIT	P2	THE TRUE OF KOTTARA	COPY OF KKARA PO	THE FIR NO.970/2016 LICE STATION
EXHIBIT	P3	THE TRUE	COPY	OF THE PETITION
		SUBMITTED 11.08.2021	TO THE	3RD RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY 9.9.2021 W P1	OF THE C ITH THE	OVERING LETTER DATED COPY OF THE EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY BEFORE THE DATED 14.0	OF THE 3RD RE 8.2021	PETITION SUBMITTED SPONDENT AND RECEIPT
EXHIBIT	P6	THE TRUE DATED 18.0	COPY OF 9.2021	THE REPRESENTATION PRESENTED BEFORE THE
		3RD RESPO 21.09.2021	NDENT	WITH RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT	P7	THE TRUE 20.11.2021	COPY O	F THE APPEAL DATED
EXHIBIT	P8	THE TRUE 3.12.2021 DATED 8.12	COPY OF WITH .2021	THE COMPLAINT DATED ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY NO.970/202 STATION	OF THE 1 OF	FINAL REPORT IN FIR KOTTARAKKARA POLICE

Geetha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Geetha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Basheer Vs Jameela

Santhosh Nair Vs Soubhagya.M.P

Gopikrishna Vs State of Kerala

Sivaraman @ Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Adv.Varughese Umman Vs Saly Pappachand

Jaseena Beegum a.K., Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep