Kerala High Court
Adv.R.Ranjith vs The City Police Commissioner on 18 March, 2022
WP(Crl.) No.182/2022 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
Friday, the 18th day of March 2022 / 27th Phalguna, 1943
WP(CRL.) NO. 182 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
ADV.R.RANJITH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.RAJAPPAN NAIR, 'AIKKARA',
DREAMS VILLA, JUDGIMUKKU, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682
021
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER ,MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 011
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA,PIN-682 021
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA,PIN-682 021
Writ petition (criminal) praying inter alia that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(Crl.) the
High Court be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to produce files
relating to Crime No. 136/2022 of Thrikkakara Police Station, forthwith,
pending final disposal of the writ petition(Crl.)
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(Crl.) and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S SANTHAN V.NAIR, P.R.JAYASANKAR, MANJUSHA K, DARSAN
SOMANATH,CHRISTEENA.P.GEORGE,SREELAKSHMI SABU advocates for the petitioner
and GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the respondents, the court passed the
following:
WP(Crl.) No.182/2022 2/7
K. HARIPAL, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.) No.182 of 2022
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2022
O R D E R
Petitioner is the defacto complainant in crime 136/2022 of
Thrikkakara police station registered on 01.02.2022 alleging offence under
Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He is a
practising lawyer and former Government Pleader of this Court. He is the
owner of five cents of land in Re-sy. 439/3 in block No.8 of Vazhakkala
village with thandaper Account No.3833 which forms part of 50.40 Ares of
land. The property remains in his possession with specific boundaries
bounded by brick walls, more than sixty years old. According to him,
when he started making constructions in the property, some persons in the
neighbourhood tried to intervene with the construction with the intention of
siphoning off money from him. Fearing their trouble, the developer and the
seller of the property signed certain documents and relinquished some
rights in the property which was already sold in favour of the Municipality.
When the trouble of the said persons continued unabated, he was forced to
approach Thrikkakara police station where crime 1121/2019 was registered
alleging offences under Sections 120B, 417, 418 read with 34 of the IPC.
WP(Crl.) No.182/2022 3/7
As the petitioner had reasons to think that the Investigating Officer is
moving hand in glove with the accused, he moved this Court with W.P(C).
No.4351/2020. By judgment dated 04.08.2020 this Court handed over the
investigation to the Crime Branch. While so, they reached a settlement.
The civil dispute also ended in settlement, in execution of the decree of the
Munsiff's Court, a gate was put up on the northern end of the property,
where a portion of the boundary wall was destroyed, in the presence of the
Amin, Taluk Surveyor, Advocate Commissioner, Assistant Engineer of
Irrigation department and others and thus the decree was satisfied about
four months back. While so, a small portion of the boundary wall was
destroyed by someone. On 26.01.2022 at 9 A.M. the damaged wall was re-
constructed. But the accused persons, in furtherance of the criminal
conspiracy hatched among them, started abusing the petitioner, members of
his family and his workers. They also trespassed upon the property and
destroyed the construction. Even though the police intervened and warned
the accused, they did not retreat. Thus Ext.P3 complaint was preferred
before the 2nd respondent, but no action was taken, the accused persons
continue their acts of destruction. The petitioner has reasons to believe that
they are indulging in Anti-National activities as well. Thus Ext.P4
WP(Crl.) No.182/2022 4/7
representation was given to the Additional Director General of Police
(Intelligence), pursuant to the same, two officers from the City Special
Branch had visited the spot and collected information. He also gave
Ext.P5 representation to the 1st respondent. Thus, on 01.02.2022 the said
crime was registered without making the main culprit Anwar as an
accused. Even though the statement of the petitioner was recorded, several
vital pieces of information stated by him were omitted. It is clear that the
intention of the 3rd respondent is to shield the accused persons. Then the
petitioner gave Ext.P7 representation to the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner has reasons to believe that if the matter is
investigated by the 3rd respondent, he will not get justice. He himself was
the Investigating Officer in crime 1121/2019, he is moving hand in glove
with the accused persons and therefore, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
(1) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1 st
respondent to hand over the investigation in Crime No.136 of 2022
of Thrikkakara Police Station to the District Crime Branch,
Ernakulam.
(2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1 st
respondent to look into the allegations levelled against the accused
persons mentioned in Exhibits P5 and P7 and take appropriate
remedial action.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the
WP(Crl.) No.182/2022 5/7
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. As directed, the 3rd respondent filed a statement updating the
investigation. According to him, the investigation is on correct track.
Statements of eight witnesses have already been recorded. Therefore, he
seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the claims made
in the statement of the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the statement of the Investigating Officer contains
baseless contentions. Even though the statement of the petitioner was
recorded, it is incorrect that the statements of his wife and son were also
recorded. Similarly, he denies the claim that the statement of the said
Harish was also recorded.
6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor made available the Case
Diary, which indicates that the statements of the wife and son of the
petitioner and the said Harish were recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C.
7. Any how, the petitioner stoutly denies the claim that his wife,
son and the said Harish were interrogated by the police. That means, there
are divergent versions as to whether those material witnesses were
WP(Crl.) No.182/2022 6/7
examined by the Sub Inspector. It is evident that the petitioner has no trust
in the present investigation. Even though the Case Diary indicates that the
investigation is conducted by the Sub Inspector, who must be subordinate
to the 3rd respondent, and since there is a contention that the local police is
acting in a partisan manner, it is only appropriate that a direction be issued
to hand over the investigation to the District Crime Branch.
8. There are reasons to believe that the local police was very slow
in registering the case despite the petitioner had alerted them about the acts
of the accused. The crime was registered only after a representation was
given before the 1st respondent. Petitioner has a case that the 3 rd
respondent is moving in an arbitrary manner favouring the accused;
similarly, it is alleged that the main culprit has been left out from the crime.
9. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, the 1 st
respondent is directed to take immediate action for handing over the
investigation to the District Crime Branch.
Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. will be considered after
the summer recess.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
okb/18.3.22
18-03-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(Crl.) No.182/2022 7/7
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 182/2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE THRIKKAKARA POLICE ON 27.01.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
ADDL.DGP INTELLIGENCE
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 31.1.2022 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOSTATE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ON 2/2/2022
