Saranya vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3951 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                 WP(C).No.948 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER/S:

           SARANYA
           AGED 25 YEARS
           D/O. SABU BALACHANDRAN, AATHIRA, THETTIKULAM
           P.O., BHOOTHAKULAM, KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT S.B.
           SADANAM, MAYLAKADU P.O., KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM-
           691571.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.K.SIJU
           SRI.S.ABHILASH
           SMT.S.SEETHA
           SMT.ANJANA KANNATH

RESPONDENT/S:

     1     STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
           HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     2     STATE POLICE CHIEF,
           POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

     3     THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
           KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001.

     4     STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
           PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLA,M DISTRICT-
           691574.

     5     SUDARSANAN,
           S/O. KUNJUKRISHNAN, SREEKRISHNA MANDIRAM,
           POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM-691302.
 W.P.(C) No.948 of 2021
                                 2



       6     BALACHANDRAN,
             AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AATHIRA,
             THETTIKULAM P.O., BHOOTHAKULAM, KOLLAM-691302.


OTHER PRESENT:

             PP T.R.RENJITH

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

ON   29.01.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   03.02.2021,   DELIVERED   THE

FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.948 of 2021
                                      3



                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021

The petitioner, while riding on the motorbike

of the 5th respondent, sustained serious injuries,

when the bike collided with the car driven by the

6th respondent. The injuries are fracture to the

occipital bone and eqpidural haemorrhage -

bilateral perieto occipital region. The petitioner

had to be admitted in a hospital and treated

impatient from 22.06.2017 to 28.07.2017. The writ

petition is filed alleging that proper

investigation was not conducted in Crime No. 1853

of 2017 of Parippally Police Station registered in

connection with the accident. Petitioner is

aggrieved by the fact that, even though the

accident had occurred while the 5th respondent

attempted to overtake the car driven by the 6 th W.P.(C) No.948 of 2021

respondent, the 6th respondent is arrayed as the

accused. According to the petitioner, she was in

a semi-conscious stage when her statement was

recorded by the Police and hence, could not give a

proper description about the incident. Further, a

reading of the mahazar of the car would show that

the car had sustained no damage in the accident,

other than some scratches on the left side. This

indicates that the accident had occurred while the

motorbike attempted to overtake the car through

the left side. The petitioner alleges that the

investigation was completed and the final report

filed in a hasty manner, without questioning the

eye witnesses to the incident. Hence, the

petitioner seeks further investigation in Crime

No.1853 of 2017.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. W.P.(C) No.948 of 2021

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition

and submitted that no prejudice would be caused by

conducting a further investigation.

4. The investigation of the case having been

completed and the jurisdictional court having

taken cognisance of the offences, that court is

best suited to decide whether further

investigation need be ordered. As laid down by the

Honourable Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai

Malaviya and others v. State of Gujarat and

another [(2019) 17 SCC 1], the jurisdictional

magistrate can, in exercise of power under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C, order further investigation even in

cases where cognisance has been taken, if the

trial has not commenced after framing of charge.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed,

reserving the petitioner's liberty to approach the W.P.(C) No.948 of 2021

trial court with an application seeking further

investigation.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/ W.P.(C) No.948 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.

1853/2017 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06/11/2017.

EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIAPPALLY POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.1853/2017 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION DATED 08/11/2017.