Kerala High Court
Kamalasan C V vs The State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KAMALASAN C V
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT CHUKKATH HOUSE,
ERAVIMANGALAM P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680751
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THRISSUR RANGE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,, PIN - 680001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,, PIN - 680001
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 676505
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
2
5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THRISSUR RURAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL. P.P.
SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.).No.888 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Call for the records leading to Ext P15 and may be
pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the
same.
ii. To exempt the petitioner from producing the
translation of documents which are in vernacular
language.
iii. To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner
may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant.
(SIC)
2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P15 order by which
the District Crime Branch is directed to investigate a case
which already closed, is illegal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that as
per Ext.P12, Crime No.340/2024 of Thrissur East Police
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
Station was closed as 'a mistake of fact'. Thereafter the
further investigation based on Ext.P15 is illegal is the
submission. The Public Prosecutor takes me through the
report of the 3rd respondent which is produced along with
a memo and submitted that originally the case was closed.
Subsequently based on the petition lodged by Vinin Vincy,
a former partner and member of the governing body of the
accused firm, before the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Thrissur Range, the further investigation was
ordered. It is also submitted that this Court, in the
judgment dated 02.06.2025 in WP(C) No.26853/2024,
issued a direction to register the case and investigate the
same. The Public Prosecutor takes me through paragraphs
8 to 10 of the above judgment.
5. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the
petitioner is one of the accused in the case. He is
challenging an order by which investigation is ordered as
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
per Ext.P15. Prima facie I am of the considered opinion
that the petitioner who is an accused cannot challenge the
investigation ordered in a case. The Apex Court in Romila
Thapar & Others v. Union of India & Others [2018
KHC 6761] considered that an accused has no right to
chose investigating authorities. It will be better to extract
the relevant portion of that judgment: paragraphs 21 to
24:
"21. Turning to the first point, we are of the
considered opinion that the issue is no more res
Integra. In Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
[2011 KHC 4352 : 2011 (5) SCC 79 : 2011 (1) KLD
716 : 2011 (4) SCALE 469 : 2011 (2) KLT SN 91 : AIR
2011 SC 1804 : 2011 CriLJ 2651 : 2011 (2) SCC (Cri)
526 : 2011 (2) UPLJ 104 : 2011 (106) AIC 106 : 2011
(3) Guj LR 2104], in paragraph 64, this Court
restated that it is trite law that the accused
personsdo not have a say in the matter of
appointment of Investigating Agency. Further, the
accused persons cannot choose as to which
Investigating Agency must investigate the offence
committed by them. Paragraph 64 of this decision
reads thus:
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
"64.... It is trite law that accused persons do
not have a say in the matter of appointment of
an investigation agency. The accused persons
cannot choose as to which investigation
agency must investigate the alleged offence
committed by them."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Again in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India
and Ors., 2015 KHC 4694 : 2016 (1) SCC 1 : 2016
CriLJ 185, the Court restated that the accused had
no right with reference to the manner of
investigation or mode of prosecution. Paragraph 68
of this judgment reads thus:
"68. The accused has no right with reference
to the manner of investigation or mode of
prosecution. Similar is the law laid down by
this Court in Union of
India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260,
Mayawati v. Union of India, 2012 (8) SCC 106,
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of
Gujarat, 2014 (4) SCC 626, CBI v. Rajesh
Gandhi, 1996 (11) SCC 253, Competition
Commission of India v. SAIL, 2010 (10) SCC
344 and Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, 1991 (3)
SCC 756."
(emphasis supplied)
23. Recently, a three - Judge Bench of this Court in
E. Sivakumar v. Union of India and Ors., 2018 KHC
6448 : 2018 (7) SCC 365 : 2018 (2) KLD 73 : 2018
(7) SCALE 656 : AIR 2018 SC 2486 : 2018 CriLJ
3064, while dealing with the appeal preferred by the
"accused" challenging the order of the High Court
directing investigation by CBI, in paragraph 10
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
observed:
"10. As regards the second ground urged by
the petitioner, we find that even this aspect
has been duly considered in the impugned
judgment. In paragraph129 of the impugned
judgment, reliance has been placed on
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of
Gujarat (Supra @ Footnote 5), wherein it has
been held that in a writ petition seeking
impartial investigation, the accused was not
entitled to opportunity of hearing as a matter
of course. Reliance has also been placed in
Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2009 (6) SCC 65, in particular, paragraph 11
of the reported decision wherein the Court
observed that it is well settled that the
accused has no right to be heard at the stage
of investigation. By entrusting the
investigation to CBI which, as aforesaid, was
imperative in the peculiar facts of the present
case, the fact that the petitioner was not
impleaded as a party in the writ petition or
for that matter, was not heard, in our opinion,
will be of no avail. That per se cannot be the
basis to label the impugned judgment as a
nullity."
24. This Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre
Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2008 (1) KHC 1047 :
2008 (3) SCC 542 : 2008 (1) KLD 437 : 2008 (3)
SCALE 532 : ILR 2008 (2) Ker. 163 : 2008 (1) KLT
1042 : 2008 (2) KLJ 105 : AIR 2008 SC 1614 : 2008
CriLJ 1891 : 2008 (2) SCC (Cri) 9 : 2008 (2) Guj LH
105, has enunciated that the High Court in exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the
investigating officer in the midstream and appoint an
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
investigating officer of its own choice to investigate
into a crime on whatsoever basis. The Court made it
amply clear that neither the accused nor the
complainant or informant are entitled to choose their
own Investigating Agency to investigate the crime in
which they are interested. The Court then went on to
clarify that the High Court in exercise of its power
under Art.226 of the Constitution can always issue
appropriate directions at the instance of the
aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that
the power of investigation has been exercised by the
investigating officer mala fide."
6. In the light of the above principle, an accused
has no right to say that a case cannot be investigated or
further investigated or re-investigated. Moreover, in the
same set of facts, this Court directed to register the case
in the judgment dated 02.06.2025 in WP(C)
No.26853/2024. It will be better to extract the relevant
portion of that judgment :
"8. The pleadings in the writ petition
and the arguments raised at the Bar would
indicate that on the basis of the complaints
received, the respondents have conducted
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
investigation effectively and FIRs were
lodged. When FIR was referred, protest
complaints have been filed and fresh
investigation is going on. Two of the
Branches of the 9th respondent Academy are
already closed.
9. From the report submitted by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, it is
evident that the police has swung into action
and has conducted effective investigation.
The investigation is on. In the circumstances,
I am of the view that the writ petition can be
disposed of with appropriate directions.
10. Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to
expedite the investigation and conclude the
same as early as possible and at any rate
within a period of six months positively. The
petitioners will be at liberty to approach
statutory authorities including respondents 5
to 7 with appropriate complaints, if the
petitioners are so advised."
7. In the light of the same, the present investigation
is going on. If that is the case, I am of the considered
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition. The
petitioner who is an accused has no locus standi to
challenge an investigation ordered by the Police Authority;
whether it is further investigation or re-investigation.
This writ petition is dismissed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 888/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP
MADE ON 8TH OF OCTOBER, 2012 BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER ON THE ONE HAND TWO
OTHER PARTNERS ON THE OTHER HAND
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ASSIGNMENT
ISSUED DATED 03.07.2018
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE W P C NO. 26853 OF
2024 FILED DATED 19.07.2024 BEFORE THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ALONG WITH THE
REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
PLEADER DATED 25.02.2025 IN EXT P3
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W P C NO. 26853 OF
2024 DATED 02.06.2025
Exhibit p6 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CASES PENDING
BEFORE THE PERINTHALMANNA JUDICIAL 1ST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT DATED NIL
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION NO.
1815 OF 2024 FILED DATED 1ST OF MARCH,
2024 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR BEARING NO. 1082
OF 2025 BY THE THRISSUR EAST POLICE
STATION DATED 10.06.2025
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO. 1913 OF
2024 DATED 20.11.2024 OF THE THRISSUR
EAST POLICE STATION
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 26.02.2024 BEFORE THE
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ALONG WITH MR.
RAJESH
OF 2024 DATED 26.02.2024, THRISSUR EAST
POLICE STATION
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REFER REPORT OF THE
POLICE IN F I R NO. 340 OF 2024 DATED
2025:KER:58655
WP(CRL.) NO. 888 OF 2025
17.06.2024
OF 2024 OF THE ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION
DATED 20.03.2024
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER IN CRIMINAL
M C NO. 693 OF 2024 DATED 23.07.2024 BY
THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
