Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.M.VIJEESH, VATTAPARAMBATH METHAL versus THE S.I. OF POLICE,M CHOKLI POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.M.VIJEESH, VATTAPARAMBATH METHAL v. THE S.I. OF POLICE,M CHOKLI POLICE - Crl MC No. 1084 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11798 (2 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1084 of 2007()

1. V.M.VIJEESH, VATTAPARAMBATH METHAL
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE S.I. OF POLICE,M CHOKLI POLICE
... Respondent

2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :02/07/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.1084 of 2007

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 27.01.2006. The petitioner is one of eight accused persons, who faced indictment in that prosecution.

2. The petitioner has come out with a curious case. According to the petitioner, he was not available in India on the relevant date. His passport would vouch for such absence of his at the relevant time in India. Without conducting a proper investigation, the final report has been filed arraying the petitioner as an accused. If the Investigating Officer had adverted to facts closely and carefully, it would have been revealed that the petitioner was not available in India and could not have had any role in the commission of offenece. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the final report as against the petitioner may be quashed. In the course of discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the lesser remedy of a direction for further investigation may be issued in favour of the petitioner to ascertain the truth.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the possibility of the Crl.M.C.No.1084 of 2007 2 same person holding more than one passport clandestinely cannot be ruled out absolutely. In these circumstances, the mere fact that one passport of the petitioner shows that he was not available in India at the relevant point of time may not be sufficient to clinch the issue. Evidence collected shows such presence, he submits.

4. But the question is whether the Investigating Officer had come across this fact in the course of investigation. Did he verify the passport of the petitioner ? Obviously no such verification has been done. The question whether the petitioner was available in India is indeed a very vital and crucial question which must be considered by the Investigating Officer. At any rate, an investigation conducted without adverting to that aspect of the matter cannot certainly be held to be a proper and correct investigation.

5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Crl.M.C deserves to be allowed in part. It shall be open to the petitioner to produce before the Investigating Officer the passport in original or a duly authenticated copy of the passport, whereupon, the Investigating Officer must consider whether a further investigation deserves to be conducted. If so, a further investigation has to be conducted after obtaining the requisite permission of the Court under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/5th accused is not available in India now and he has gone Crl.M.C.No.1084 of 2007 3 back to his place of employment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner needs some time to produce the relevant document/copy of the passport before the Investigating Officer. I am satisfied that appropriate direction in this regard can be issued.

7. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed in part. The petitioner is granted 60 days' time from this date to produce before the Investigating Officer the original or a duly authenticated copy of the passport to apprise the Investigating Officer that he was not available in India during the relevant time. The Investigating Officer shall peruse the same and shall take appropriate decision on the question whether a further investigation deserves to be conducted. He shall act accordingly thereafter.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.