Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAYAN, S/O. KUNJAPPAN versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VIJAYAN, S/O. KUNJAPPAN v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 14441 of 2007(T) [2007] RD-KL 13216 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 14441 of 2007(T)

1. VIJAYAN, S/O. KUNJAPPAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

W.P(C).No.14441 of 2007

Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered under Section 379 I.P.C. The petitioner had promptly complained on 06.04.07 that his vehicle-a lorry, which was kept by the side of the road as usual, was thieved on the night of 29.03.07. A crime was registered on 6.4.07. Investigation is being conducted. The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation has been conducted by the 3rd and 4th respondents into his grievance that his vehicle has been thieved.

2. Notice was given. The learned Public Prosecutor has got a statement filed by the Investigating Officer. The statement of the Investigating Officer shows that the police is not too convinced about the version of the complainant that his lorry has been lost. Of course, they have not got any tangible material and have not been able to trace the vehicle so far. However, a perusal of the case diary shows that the Investigating Officer entertains a hunch that the petitioner has dismantled and disposed of the vehicle. Such course, it is suspected, was followed by him to frustrate the financier who had advanced money to him on the security of the vehicle. Registration certificate of the vehicle is allegedly kept in the possession of such W.P(C).No.14441 of 2007 2 financier. Investigation is in progress. Nothing tangibgle has been unearthed so far. The Investigating Officer appears to be considering all options. But he appears to be gravitating to the inference that it was not a case of theft really and the petitioner may have been responsible for the clandestine disposal of the vehicle.

3. Investigation is not complete and it is too early to express any opinion on the acceptability of the apprehensions/tentative inferences reached by the Investigating Officer. To rule out the theory of theft and to confirm the theory of clandestine disposal by the petitioner, certainly more materials must be collected. The Investigating Officer in his report submits that he is doing the needful and he expects to resolve the crime and file a final report - positive or negative, as expeditiously as possible.

4. The prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C is made for a direction to transfer the investigation to someoneelse. The learned Government Pleader was directed to place the case diary before me. I have perused the case diary. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion on the acceptability of the tentative apprehensions, conclusions and inferences of the Investigating Officer. Suffice it to say that I find merit in the submission of the Investigating Officer that some further time deserves to be granted to him to complete the investigation and file an appropriate final report. I am satisfied that W.P(C).No.14441 of 2007 3 the Superintendent of Police, Trivandrum (Rural), who is expected to exercise supervisory control over the investigation by the 3rd respondent must be directed to monitor and supervise the investigation by the 3rd respondent and ensure that an acceptable final conclusion is reached as expeditiously as possible.

5. In the result, this Writ petition is, allowed in part. The 3rd respondent is given further time to complete the investigation expeditiously. There shall be a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Trivandrum(Rural) to effectively monitor and supervise the investigation of the 3rd respondent into this crime.

6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned Public Prosecutor for immediate communication to the Superintendent of Police, Trivandrum (Rural).

(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.