Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAMES, SON OF AUGUSTHY versus THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAMES, SON OF AUGUSTHY v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - WP(C) No. 19187 of 2007(H) [2007] RD-KL 14426 (30 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19187 of 2007(H)

1. JAMES, SON OF AUGUSTHY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. SANTHOSH, SON OF APPACHAN,

3. SAJI, SON OF APPACHAN, DO.

4. ULLAS, SON OF APPACHAN, DO.

5. JOICE, MATTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :30/07/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

= = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C). No.19187 Of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

The short grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted into the crime No.127/07 by the 1st respondent- Investigating Officer. That crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the Police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer to issue appropriate directions regarding the proper conduct of the investigation. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. After taking instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor submits and a report to that effect has been filed by the 1st respondent- Investigating Officer, that a proper investigation has already been conducted and negative final report has been filed before the learned Magistrate. It is for the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the said final report, to raise his objections, it is submitted.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner after being apprised all the events that have taken place in the crime registered at the W.P.(C)No.19187 of 2007 2 instance of the petitioner, submits that the petitioners shall do the needful to challenge the final report and no further directions are now necessary.

4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition does not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to challenge the negative final report by initiating appropriate proceedings before the learned Magistrate

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

sj


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.