Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.S.LEELA, 58 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.S.LEELA, 58 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 2832 of 2007(K) [2007] RD-KL 4244 (26 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2832 of 2007(K)

1. P.S.LEELA, 58 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

7. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV

For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :26/02/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 2832 OF 2007-K

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased, one Kshemakumar. He allegedly met with his unnatural death consequent to an accident on 14/1/06. A crime was registered under Sec.174 of the Cr.P.C. Investigation was in progress. Ext.P9 report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. It has not accepted so far.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that directions may be issued for the conduct of a proper and efficient investigation in the matter.

3. Notice was given. The learned Public Prosecutor has entered appearance for the respondents. The 6th respondent has filed a statement to which Ext.R6(a) is appended which shows that the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam (Rural) has directed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Ernakulam Rural (Aluva) shall take over the investigation. W.P.(C) NO. 2832 OF 2007-K -: 2 :-

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the said order, the petitioner has no surviving grievance. The petitioner bona fide expects that a proper investigation shall be conducted as directed by the 4th respondent. In these circumstances, no further directions are necessary in the matter, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Advocate Mr. K.B. Suresh on behalf of one Mohankumar against whom the petitioner appears to have raised allegations wants to come on record. The learned counsel submits that his client also welcomes a thorough, complete and proper investigation in the matter. Baseless allegations have been raised against him, it is submitted.

6. Inasmuch as the 4th respondent has already taken necessary action in the matter, I am satisfied that no further directions are to be issued in the matter. Proper investigation in accordance with law shall be conducted by the officer who has been directed under Ext.R2(a) to take up the investigation.

7. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge


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.