Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAYAKUMAR K.M.,AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.LATE versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VIJAYAKUMAR K.M.,AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.LATE v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 30647 of 2006(W) [2007] RD-KL 3674 (19 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30647 of 2006(W)

1. VIJAYAKUMAR K.M.,AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.LATE
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :19/02/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

W.P(C).No.30647 of 2006

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted in Crime No.43 of 2004 of Devikulam police station. A statement was filed by the 3rd respondent. After perusing the said report, directions were issued on 18.12.06 to the Superintendent of Police, Idukki to personally supervise the investigation which is being conducted by the 3rd respondent. As directed by order dt.18.12.06, the Superintendent of Police, Idukki has now filed a statement dt.22.01.07, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that some action appears to have been taken by the Investigating Officer now and he does not want to make any further grievance at this stage. He only points out that according to the petitioner, one Venu, Station Writer in the police station is interested against the petitioner and apprehends that he may tamper with the records. The investigation is conducting by the Sub Inspector of Police under the supervision of Superintendent of Police and I have no reason to assume that such unjustified interference with the investigation by a subordinate official, Station Writer, will be permitted. I need only mention that the 3rd respondent and the Superintendent of Police, under whose supervision the investigation is W.P(C).No.30647 of 2006 2 being conducted now, must take note of this apprehension expressed by the petitioner and scrupulously ensure that the apprehended impropriety does not take place.

2. No further or specific direction appears to be necessary now. This W.P(C) is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court later, should a proper investigation not be conducted and completed hereafter. Investigation must be conducted as expeditiously and final report filed at any rate, within a period of 6 months from this date.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- W.P(C).No.30647 of 2006 3


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.