Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FAREESA versus THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAIKKOM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


FAREESA v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAIKKOM - WP(C) No. 23036 of 2007(P) [2007] RD-KL 16615 (4 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23036 of 2007(P)

1. FAREESA,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. MATHEW, S/O CHACKO,

3. MARTIN, S/O MATHEW,

For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :04/09/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

W.P(C).No.23036 of 2007

Dated this the 4th day of September, 2007



JUDGMENT

The short grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that no crime has been registered on the basis of Ext.P2 complaint by the respondents. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader . The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits, and a statement to that effect has been filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom, that Crime No.471 of 2007 under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C has been registered on 16.08.07 on the basis of the complaint received from the petitioner. The police official acknowledges that there has been a delay in the registration of the crime. It is submitted that the delay occurred on account of reasons beyond the control of the officials concerned. An unconditional apology is tendered for not registering the crime in time.

2. The reason urged to explain the failure/omission to register a crime promptly is most unsatisfactory. The reasons offered cannot justify such a grievous lapse on the part of the officer concerned. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that the submission made by the learned Government Pleader and the statement filed by the Circle Inspector of Police can be accepted. I accept the submission that a proper, efficient W.P(C).No.23036 of 2007 2 and expeditious investigation shall now be conducted into Crime No.471 of 2007. No further directions appear to be necessary in this Writ Petition now. The learned counsel for the petitioner also accepts the same. However, I make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach this Court later, if a proper, efficient and expeditious investigation is not conducted. I expect the Investigating Officer to take necessary action expeditiously. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.

(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.