Kerala High Court
Kiran K B vs Director General Of Police on 2 August, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 243 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1303/2023 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
KIRAN K B
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O BABU K.S,
KARYAVILAYIL HOUSE,
NENMANIKKARA PUDUKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680301
BY ADVS.
ANEESH K.R
SAURAV B.
LIA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:
1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
VELLAYAMBALAM,
CITY-THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
2 SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE
THRISSUR RURAL, KALYAN NAGAR,
AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUDUKAD
PUDUKAD POLICE STATION,
PUDUKAD THRISSUR, PIN - 680301
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.NARAYANAN,
SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL. P.P.
SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.()
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-10)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No.243 of 2024
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.) No.243 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks directions to the second respondent to take over
the investigation into Crime No.1303/2023 of Pudukkad Police Station,
Thrissur District and also to direct the first respondent to ensure a fair and
proper investigation.
2. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in the aforementioned
crime. The offences alleged in the said FIR is under Sections 341, 294(b),
506, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the complainant, the accused had, on 03.10.2023, restrained
the defacto complainant and after abusing and threatening him, used an
iron rod to assault him. The accused is also alleged to have threatened to
kill the defacto complainant if he fails to complete the renovation work,
and thereby committed the offences alleged.
3. Petitioner, alleges that despite the FIR having been registered, no
investigation worth its name has been carried out, and therefore, the
second respondent ought to be directed to take over the investigation.
4. The statement filed on behalf of the investigating officer has
pointed out a different facet of the crime. As per the statement, the writ
petitioner is a site supervisor of a company by name M/s. Sterbull
Infrastructure and Developers (P) Ltd. which had agreed to execute certain
renovation works in the house of the defacto complainant for a total sum of
Rs.13,20,000/-. After promising to complete the renovation works before
25.09.2023, the company had collected an amount of Rs.11,20,000/-, and
when the work was not completed within the stipulated time, there was a
verbal altercation between the petitioner and the accused on 03-10-2023
on the basis of which, a petition was filed by the petitioner on 04.10.2023.
Pursuant to the above complaint, both parties were summoned to the
Police Station and a consensus was arrived at regarding the completion of
the renovation work. Subsequently, Sri. Subin, the first accused in the
present crime filed a complaint on 07-12-2023, but the petitioner did not
turn up for enquiry. The statement further mentions that, in the meantime,
the petitioner approached the Magistrate by filing C.M.P.No.11087/2023,
and on the basis of an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, a crime was
registered.
5. The statement of the investigating officer further mentions that
the wife of the accused filed a complaint as C.M.P.No.667/2024 before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, and pursuant to a
reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, another crime was registered as
crime No.84/2024. In the said crime, non-completion of the work within
the stipulated time frame is alleged to have resulted in offences being
committed by the petitioner against Smt. Sreelakshmi - wife of the
accused herein, and in the said case, there are allegations of offences
committed under Sections 354 and 354B IPC. It was also stated that the
investigation into Crime No.1303/2023 of Putdukkad Police Station is
ongoing, while a notice has also been served upon the petitioner to provide
the eyewitnesses to the incident alleged by him. The investigating officer
stated that the allegations to the contrary in the writ petition are without
any basis and that the investigation is being carried out in a just and fair
manner.
6. I have heard Sri. Aneesh. K.R., the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.P, Narayanan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. On a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition as well as the
statement filed by the investigating officer and the arguments put forth by
the respective counsels, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where
any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be
issued.
8. The attempt of the petitioner to obtain an order from this Court
regarding the ongoing investigation does not inspire the confidence of this
Court, especially in the light of the averments in the statement filed by the
respondents as mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. The direction sought
in this writ petition is intended to create an 'edge' for the petitioner over
the accused in Crime No.1303/2023, who has also filed a complaint against
the petitioner on 07-12-2023 before the same police station. Further, the
petitioner has not revealed the entire factual aspects especially those
relating to his employer's alleged failure to complete the alleged work
agreed upon by them.
9. Notwithstanding the above, since the investigation is ongoing and
nothing substantial has been brought out to even doubt the credibility of
the investigation, this Court cannot be called upon to issue any directions
in a pending criminal investigation. The High Court should not generally
interfere with the investigation being conducted and nor shall the hands of
an investigating officer be chained or cribbed by directions issued by this
Court. Of course, in exceptional circumstances, this Court and even the
Magistrate can issue such directions, as observed in the decision in Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P and Others [(2008) 2 SCC 409]. Such exceptional
circumstances do not exist in this case.
Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jka/02.08.24.
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 243/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP TICKET DATED
3.10.2023 ISSUED FROM PUDUKAD TALUK
HOSPITAL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 3.10.2023
GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHO
PUDUKAD POLICE STATION
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
24.11.2023 TO THE CITY POLICE
COMMISSIONER THRISSUR GIVEN THROUGH EMAIL
BY PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
WHICH WAS NUMBERED AS CMP NO 11087/2023
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTARTE COURT IRINJALAKUDA
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 1303
OF 2023 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
15.12.2023 SEND TO THE DGP IN HIS
OFFICIAL EMAIL
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
18.12.2023 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA IN WPC NO 42453 OF 2023
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO
84/2024 OF PUDUKAD POLICE STATION
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION
160 OF CRPC DATED 24.02.2024
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED
24.2.2024 SEND TO SHO PUDUKAD POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED
26.02.2024 SEND TO SUPERINTENDANT OF
POLICE THRISSUR
