Kerala High Court
Ashraf Kondotyparamban vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 14 August, 2023
WP(C) NO. 27845 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 27845 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
ASHRAF KONDOTYPARAMBAN
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,KONDOTYPARAMBAN HOUSE,PULLARA-
CHEMBRAMMAL, POOKOTOOR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 517.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
SMT.M.SHAJNA
SMT.UMMUL FIDA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 121.
2 THE ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 121.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HOME
DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHPURAM 695 001.
4 CHEKKU MUHAMMED
S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,KONDOTTY PARAMAN HOUSE,POOKOTTUR
AMSOM PULLARA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 517.
5 ABDUL JALEEL
S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY,KONDOTTY PARAMBAN HOUSE,POOKOTTUR
AMSOM PULLARA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 517.
6 ALAVI
S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN HAJI,KOYILANDYIL HOUSE, POOKOTTUR
AMSOM PULLARA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 517.
7 ABDUL RASAK
S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,KOYILANDYIL HOUSE, POOKOTTUR
AMSOM PULLARA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 517.
8 KUNHIMOIDEEN
KOYILANDYIL HOUSE, POOKOTTUR AMSOM PULLARA,MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT 676 517.
BY ADVS.
WP(C) NO. 27845 OF 2017
2
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SRI.NOUSHAD K.A
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27845 OF 2017
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
========================
W.P.(C)No.27845 of 2017
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the defacto complaint in Crime No.1506/2012 of
Manjeri Police Station. The said crime was registered based upon a
complaint alleging that, on 15.09.2012, the accused had approached
the construction site of the defacto complainant armed with
dangerous weapons and after bawling out to kill, restrained him and,
brutally assaulted the defacto complainant with weapons, as a result
of which he sustained grievous hurt and the accused committed the
offences alleged.
2. Petitioner alleges that he is a handicapped person since
his left leg was amputated 15 years prior to the incident and
therefore, he could not even respond to the assault, and that he was
hospitalised for several days.
3. Petitioner complains that, when he was called to give
evidence in the case, he realised that the investigation was
improperly conducted and that in the nature of the final report filed,
the prosecution, would find it practically impossible to convict the
accused.
4. In support of the said contention, it is alleged that
another crime was registered as F.I.R.No.1506/2012, alleging
WP(C) NO. 27845 OF 2017
another incident that occurred relating to the petitioner. However,
the latter referred crime is allegedly committed at the same time but
at a different place, two kilometers away from the scene of crime in
F.I.R.No.1283/2012. It is alleged that the two cases, being case and
counter case, the investigation has destroyed its own case and
unless a further investigation is directed, petitioner would be put to
serious prejudice.
5. Sri.Firoz.K.M., learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed
out that, when the prosecution filed an application for further
investigation, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed it on
technicalities. However, the fact remains that even the prosecutor
was of the opinion that a further investigation is necessary.
6. Sri.K.M.S.Menon, learned Counsel appearing for
respondents 4 to 8, on the other hand contended that F.I.R.
No.1506/2012 was registered pursuant to a private complaint, since
the Police had refused to register the FIR. It was further pointed out
that the attempt of the petitioner is to stall the proceedings against
him since, on the date when the case was posted for trial, he
managed to convince the prosecutor to file a petition for further
investigation, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court as per
Ext.P8. Without challenging the said order or without filing a petition
before the said court itself, he has straight away come to this Court
seeking a direction for further investigation. According to the learned
Counsel, the incident is of the year 2012, and it is evident from
WP(C) NO. 27845 OF 2017
Ext.P8 that the Investigating Officer had expired in 2017 itself and
therefore, no purpose would be achieved by ordering any further
investigation.
7. Sri.K.A.Noushad, learned Public Prosecutor, pointed out
that Crime No.1283/2012 and Crime No.1506/2012, are now pending
consideration before the Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri as
S.C.No.340/2013 and S.C.No.174/2015 respectively. Pursuant to a
transfer ordered by this Court on 01.06.2015 in O.M.No.
(A)78549/2013.
8. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 15.09.2012,
and more than 11 years have elapsed, since the incident. Petitioner
alleges that the investigation was not properly carried out and that
the witnesses, who have been arrayed in the crime, are all planted
witnesses. It is specifically pointed out that CW9, is arrayed as a
witness, stating that he had taken petitioner to the hospital.
However, it was some body else, who had taken the petitioner to the
hospital, and therefore, it is evident that the investigation only
misleads the court and helps the actual culprits.
9. Considering the circumstances arising in this case, I am
of the view that, at this distance of time, directing a further
investigation to be conducted would only cause prejudice, especially
since the learned Trial Judge is vested with the powers to add
additional accused or even to order further investigation, provided
the circumstances satisfy such a direction. Exercising the jurisdiction
WP(C) NO. 27845 OF 2017
of this Court under 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of
directing a further investigation is not warranted in the peculiar
circumstances of this case. The delay would only contribute to
injustice. Therefore, the prayer for further investigation is declined.
10. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am of the
view that since S.C.No.340/2013 and S.C.No.174/2014 are pending
before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, they
can be proceeded with. However, the learned Sessions Judge will be
at liberty during trial to consider the need for any further
investigation, if circumstances so warrant, untrammeled by any
observation or finding in this judgment.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation.
sd/
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jm/
WP(C) NO. 27845 OF 2017
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27845/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1283/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1283/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY 5TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANJERI LEADING TO CRIME
NO. 1506/2012 OF MENJERI POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1506/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 1283/2012 OF
MANJERI POLICE STATION
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CHARGE
SHEET IN CRIME NO. 1506/2012 OF MANJERI
POLICE STATION
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF C.M.P NO.938/2012 IN SC
NO.340/2013 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL COURT
I, MANJERI PREFERRED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN C.M.P NO.938/2017
IN SC.NO.340/2013 ON THE FILES OF ADDITINAL
SESSION COURT I, MANJERI FILED BY THE
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/5/2017 IN CMP
NO.938/2017 IN SC.NO.340/2013 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL SESSION COURT I, MANJERI
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME
NO.1283/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
