Kerala High Court
V.G.Sakthidharan vs State Of Kerala on 28 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:56259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 820 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1087/2024 OF MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.277 OF 2025
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KANJIRAPPALLY
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 V.G.SAKTHIDHARAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O GOPINATHA PILLAI, VELLAPPALLI HOUSE,
KORUTHODU, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686513
2 REENA SAKTHIDHARAN
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. SAKTHIDHARAN, VELLAPPALLI HOUSE, KORUTHODU,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686513
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
SMT.SAINA MARIYAM BABY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:56259
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
COLLECTORATE.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686513
5 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTAYAM,
PIN - 686513
6 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
PONKUNNAM MINI CIVIL STATION, PONKUNNAM POST,
KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686506
7 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, COLLECTORATE P.O,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
8 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CRIME BRANCH WING, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, CRIME BRANCH WING, COLLECTORATE.P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:56259
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
WP (CRL)No.820 OF 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers.
i. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ,
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to hand
over the investigation of the crime no-1087/2024 of
Mundakkayam police station to the 8th respondent for
further investigation.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ,
order or direction directing the 5th respondent to
handover the entire case files relating to crime
no.1087/2024 of Mundakkayam police station to the 8 th
respondent for further investigation.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ,
order or direction directing the 8th respondent to
complete the investigation within a time frame as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
iv. To issue a direction to dispense with the English
translation of the Malayalam documents produced in the
Writ Petition(Criminal)
v. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and
proper to grant on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of Justice.
2. Admittedly, the first petitioner is an
accused in CC No.277/2025 on the files of Judicial First
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:56259
Class Magistrate Court-I Kanjirappally. The 2nd petitioner
is his wife who is arrayed as charge witness no.10 in the
above case. The main prayer in this case is to issue a
direction to the 2nd respondent to handover the
investigation of Crime No.1087/2024 of Mundakkayam
Police station to the 8th respondent, who is the
Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. It is a settled position that, an accused
has no vested right to seek change of investigation. The
Apex Court in Romila Thapar and Others v. Union of
India and Others [2018 KHC 6761], considered this
matter in detail. The paragraphs 21 to 24 are relevant
and the same is extracted hereunder.
"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
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:56259
104 : 2011 (106) AIC 106 : 2011 (3) Guj LR 2104], in
paragraph 64, this Court restated that it is trite law that
the accused persons do 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: "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 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 paragraph 129 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
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:56259
(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 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." (sic)
5. This Court in George Cyriac vs. State of
Kerala, [2025 SCC online Kerala 1355] also
considered this aspect in detail. Paragraph 10 of the
above judgment is extracted hereunder.
"10. While analysing the question of law as to whether
an accused has an absolute right to seek for further
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:56259
investigation, in fact, an accused has no absolute right to seek
further investigation or to dictate terms for investigation or to
say that the investigation shall go in a particular manner.
However, as held by the Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi's case
(supra) and other decisions, the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence is that a just and fair investigation and
fair trial shall be carried out in regard to an allegation levelled
against a suspect or an accused, which is within the ambit of
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. When the
investigation ex facie is unfair, tainted, mala fide, incomplete,
shabby and meddled with smacks of foul play, the courts have
power to intervene the investigation, thereby the constitutional
courts can set aside such an investigation and direct fresh or de
novo investigation or further investigation, as the case may be,
to protect the fundamental right of the suspect or the accused
and to ensure that there must be a fair investigation and
consequential fair trial. Apart from that the courts other than
constitutional courts dealing with the matter also can order
further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr. P.C. in an
appropriate case within the sweep of the said power before
start of trial."(sic).
6. Again this Court in Biju R. v. State of
Kerala 2024 KHC 762, observed that, 173(8) Cr.PC
does not give a vested right to the accused to file an
application for further investigation. The relevant
paragraph 13 is extracted hereunder.
"13. It is well settled law that once the final report is
filed and the Magistrate, on verification of the records, finds
that further investigation is necessary, the Magistrate could
very well order further investigation. The constitutional courts
have the power to order further investigation or re -
investigation in appropriate cases as per law. In Vinubhai's
case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Magistrate
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:56259
possesses the power to order further investigation, after filing
of final report and taking cognizance, till trial actually
commences and trial commences only with framing of
charges. Going by the discussion along with the decisions
referred, S.173(8) CrPC does not give a vested right to the
accused to file an application for further investigation and the
ratio in Khaleel's case (supra) which runs contra to the earlier
decisions referred above is not good law and could not be
followed."(sic)
7. In the light of the above principle, I am of
the considered opinion that, the 1 st petitioner who is an
accused has no right to change the investigating officer,
especially, when the final report has been already filed
before the Jurisdictional Court. At this stage, the Court
can only exercise the powers under Section 173(8). In
the light of the dictum laid down by this Court, and the
Apex Court, at the instance of the accused, a further
investigation cannot be ordered. But, I make it clear that,
all the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ
petition are left open and the petitioner is free to agitate
the same before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage.
8. Granting liberty to the petitioner to raise
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:56259
all the contentions before the Trial Court at the
appropriate stage.
This Writ Petition (Criminal) is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SLR
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:56259
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 820/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
NO-1087/2024 DATED 19-10-2024 OF THE
MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 21-10-2024
Exhibit P3 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SKIDDING MARKS ON
THE ROAD CAUSED BY THE MOTOR CYCLE
Exhibit P4 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE HITTING MARKS ON
THE POST CAUSED BY THE MOTOR CYCLE
Exhibit P5 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE FRONT TYRE OF THE
MOTOR CYCLE INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT
Exhibit P6 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO
THE MOTOR CYCLE INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT
Exhibit P7 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE HITTING MARK ON
THE AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING REGISTRATION
NO-KL34 J/2482
Exhibit P8 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE ROAD
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT BOTH
DATED 8-4-2025
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION
35(3) OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 11-4-2025
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 133 OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT ALONG WITH THE REPLY OF THE
2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 15-3-2025 BEFORE THE
6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT DATED 1-4-2025 ALONG WITH THE
ACCIDENT-CUM-INSPECTION REPORT OF THE
VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT IN
CRIME NO-1087/2024 OF MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE
STATION
WP(CRL)No.820 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:56259
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 28-3-2025 ALONG WITH
REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 3-2-
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 11-4-
2025 IN CRIME 1087/2024 OF THE
KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANJIRAPPALLY ALONG
WITH LIST OF WITNESSES
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHASAR PREPARED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 19-10-2024 IN
CRIME NO-1087/2024 OF THE MUNDAKKAYAM
POLICE STATION
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTION REPORT DATED
19-10-2024 IN CRIME NO-1087/2024 OF THE
MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION WHICH WAS
SUBMITTED ON 6-5-2025
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW1,
RAKESHKUMAR DATED 19-10-2024 IN CRIME NO-
1087/2024 OF MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION
Exhibit P19 22. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW2,
ACHANKUNJU DATED 20-10-2024 IN CRIME NO-
1087/2024 OF MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION
Exhibit P20 23. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW3,
VARKEY A.T ALIAS BABU DATED 20-10-2024 IN
CRIME NO-1087/2024 OF MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P21 24. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW4,
USHAKUMARI DATED 20-10-2024 IN CRIME NO-
1087/2024 OF MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION
