Kerala High Court
Swami Sandrananda vs K.S. Manoj on 2 June, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:38470
1
W.A. No. 763 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 763 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.27346 OF 2024
OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10:
1 SWAMI SANDRANANDA
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O SUDHAKARAN, SECRETARY, ARUVIPPURAM KSHETHRAM & MUTT
(BRANCH: SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGHOM TRUST),
ARUVIPPURAM P O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695126
2 AJI
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O SADASIVAN, SAJISADANAM, OPPOSITE KERALA BANK,
ARUVIPPURAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695126
3 KAPEESH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O YOHANNAN, MOTTALLUMOODU, CHERUNELLIYODU,
MANNAMKONAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695125
BY ADV SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
2025:KER:38470
2
W.A. No. 763 of 2025
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7 AND 11:
1 K.S. MANOJ
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN, PULIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, ARUVIPPURAM POST,
PERUNKADAVILA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, ARUVIPPURAM
POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695126
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
3 STATE POLICE CHIEF AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
DGP POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695001
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, VIKASBHAVAN, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL
STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
6 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ALUMMOODU,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695121
7 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE STATION, MARAYAMUTTAM POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695124
8 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PERUMKADAVILA VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMKADAVILA POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695124
9 PERUMKADAVILA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUMKADAVILA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695124
2025:KER:38470
3
W.A. No. 763 of 2025
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
SMT.A.LOWSY
SMT.T.SWETHA
SHRI.PRABHU B.M.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV. K SHIBILI NAHA, FOR PARTY RESP.1 &
ADV. RANJITH T R, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:38470
4
W.A. No. 763 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
This appeal is preferred by the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 in W.P.(C) No.
27346 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned judgment, the learned
Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the State Police Chief to
hand over the investigation in Crime No. 457 of 2024 of Marayamuttom
Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, to the District Crime Branch, with a
further direction to investigate the crime in accordance with law.
2. Short facts which led to the filing of this appeal can be summarised
as follows:
Based on a complaint lodged by the 1st respondent in this Appeal, Crime
No.457 of 2024 of Marayamuttom Police Station was registered inter alia for
the offences punishable under Sections 379, 380, 447 of the IPC and Section
3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, against the
appellants. The brief allegation as per the FIR is that the appellants
herein/respondent Nos. 8 to 10 in the Writ Petition hatched a criminal
conspiracy and pursuant to the same, trespassed into the
2025:KER:38470
Government-owned puramboke land, situated on the banks of the Neyyar
River, and cut and removed 15 teak wood trees valued at Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only), on 06.05.2024 and thereby committed the offence.
The investigation in the above case was being carried out by the Station
House Officer, Marayamuttam Police Station.
3. In the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the 1st respondent contended that the Station House Officer was
acting hand-in-glove with the accused, and that he was not carrying out any
effective or meaningful investigation. His prayer was for the issuance of
directions to the concerned respondents to entrust the investigation to a
Senior Officer of the Crime Branch.
4. Counter-affidavits were filed by the party respondents.
5. The learned Single Judge, after evaluating the facts and
circumstances, took note that although about seven months had elapsed
after the registration of the crime, the investigation had not inched forward.
The stand of the State that the trees stood in Puramboke Land was also
noted. Steps routinely taken during investigation in such cases, such as
seizure of the timber and equipment, arrest of the accused and their
2025:KER:38470
production before the court, etc., had not been carried out. Based on these
tell-tale signs, the Court concluded that no meaningful or effective
investigation was being carried out, and the same was tardy. Invoking the
extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directions
were issued to the State Police Chief to intervene and hand over the
investigation to the Crime Branch, which is just another wing of the State
Police.
6. Sri. R.T. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
relying on the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu
v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, as well as in Aleque Padamsee v. State of
Delhi2, submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in
entertaining the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has
implied powers in monitoring the investigation by the Police, and if that be
the case, there was no reason for the complainant to approach this Court
and seek relief. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that while
issuing directions, certain prima facie findings have been arrived at by the
learned Single Judge, which are likely to cause serious prejudice to the
accused. The learned counsel would urge that the appellants have already
[(2008) 2 SCC 409]
[2007 SCC 6 171]
2025:KER:38470
approached the Government seeking the assignment of the land which is
lying adjacent to the Temple of the Madom. The said property having been in
the possession of the Madom for the last 130 years, there is no question of
the offence under Section 379 of the IPC being attracted. The learned
counsel would further urge that buildings as well as other structures
belonging to the Madom are situated in the property in question. The learned
counsel submits that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the timber
was not seized by the police is factually incorrect. Finally, it is submitted that
even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, the only offence
attracted would be under Section 220(g) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,
1994. If that be the case, unless a complaint is lodged by the Secretary of
the Panchayat, the police cannot take cognizance of the matter. In order to
buttress his submissions, reliance was placed on the judgments in Babu
Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka3, Devendra Nath Singh v. State of
Bihar 4 and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab & Ors5.
7. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
that in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, orders
have been passed by the State Police Chief, and the investigation is being
[ 2022 5 SCC 639 ]
[ 2023 1 SCC 48 ]
[ AIR 2009 SC 984]
2025:KER:38470
carried out by an officer of the Crime Branch. It is further submitted that the
investigation is proceeding along proper lines and in a thorough manner. He
undertook that no efforts shall be spared to conduct the investigation in a
fair and transparent manner and to conclude the same without delay.
8. Sri. K. Shibili Naha, the learned counsel appearing for the party
respondent, opposed the submissions advanced by Sri. R.T. Pratheep. He
contends that nothing stands in the way of the Constitutional Court from
invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the records
before the Court prima facie reveal that the investigation conducted by the
police was lackadaisical. In the case at hand, the learned Single Judge has
carefully gone through the records and issued appropriate directions in the
interest of justice. The learned counsel submits that no intervention is
warranted.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the records.
10. We find that, based on a complaint lodged by the 1st respondent
herein, a crime was registered by the Marayamuttam Police. The 1st
respondent had approached this Court, aggrieved by the lackadaisical and
2025:KER:38470
ineffective manner in which the investigation was being carried out by the
Station House Officer, Marayamuttam Police Station. The learned Single
Judge had called for the case records and, upon perusal, found that despite
the lapse of over seven months, the investigation had not progressed along
expected lines. It was in these circumstances that the Court, invoking its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
issued directions to the State Police Chief to transfer the investigation to a
competent officer of the Crime Branch. Though learned counsel for the
appellants contends that the learned Single Judge has entered conclusive
findings, we find that the order merely records the areas where the
investigation was found wanting. Sri. R.T. Pradeep, learned counsel for the
appellants, argued that certain observations made by the learned Single
Judge may lead the investigating agency to adopt a preconceived stand,
thereby undermining the fairness of the investigation. We see no reason to
accept such a submission. It is the duty of the investigating agency to
conduct a fair, impartial, and comprehensive probe into all aspects of the
matter and report whether the offences alleged are made out. Any
observations made by the learned Single Judge are, at best, prima facie in
nature and cannot be construed as conclusions on the merits of the case. We
expect the investigating officer to proceed strictly in accordance with the law,
2025:KER:38470
untrammelled by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge.
We also observe that the mere fact that this Court has issued directions to
conduct the investigation fairly and to expedite the same does not preclude
the appellants from seeking appropriate legal remedies before this Court or
any other competent forum, should the need arise.
11. We are also not persuaded by the contention that this Court, while
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is precluded
from intervening even in cases where demonstrable apathy is shown by the
investigating officer. There is a distinction between the monitoring of an
investigation by the learned Magistrate and the power of the Constitutional
Court to issue directions to entrust the investigation to a different or more
competent authority. The latter course was adopted in this case only after
the learned Single Judge found the investigation to be tardy and
unsatisfactory. We fail to understand how the accused can claim to be
prejudiced by a direction to entrust the investigation to a Senior Officer of
the Crime Branch, a specialised branch of the police. Such a course is more
likely to ensure a fair, unbiased, and professional investigation, which would
only benefit the parties which include the accused.
12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment passed
2025:KER:38470
by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. We make it
clear that the investigation, as ordered and currently being conducted by the
Crime Branch, shall continue in a fair and impartial manner, addressing all
relevant facts, and an appropriate report shall be filed before the
jurisdictional Magistrate without delay.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
JUDGE
APM
2025:KER:38470
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR DATED 14.7.2024 IN CRIME
NO.457/2024 OF MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION
