High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
CHARLIE J.LOPEZ, S/O JOHN P.LOPEZ v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL) - WP(C) No. 8817 of 2007(Y)  RD-KL 5750 (21 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 8817 of 2007(Y)
1. CHARLIE J.LOPEZ, S/O JOHN P.LOPEZ,
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL),
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.W.P.C.No.8817 of 2007
Dated this the 21st day of March 2007
The petitioner, a person aged about 66 years, is the accused in crime No.39/2007 of Kallambalam police station registered initially under Section 324 I.P.C and later altered as Section 326 I.P.C. He is also the defacto complainant/victim in Crime No.40/2007 registered under Section 326 I.P.C at the same police station. The allegations in the two crimes are in the nature of a case and the counter case. The petitioner, under the impression that the offences alleged against him are bailable, surrendered before the learned Magistrate only to learn that offence under Section 326 I.P.C also had been included. He was remanded to custody and later released on bail. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation is being conducted by the second respondent. The second respondent has unfairly altered the sections of offence from 324 I.P.C to 326 I.P.C in crime No.39/07. He has not so far arrested the accused in crime No.40/07. It is, in these circumstances, that he has come to this court with a complaint about inadequate and improper investigation by the second respondent. W.P.C.No.8817/07 2
2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that proper investigation has been conducted by the investigating officer. The alteration of Section 324 to 326 I.P.C was done shortly after registration of crime when the relevant facts came to the notice of the investigating officer. The accused in Crime No.40/07 had sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. In these circumstances, the grievances raised against the conduct of the investigation by the second respondent are not too justified, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. However, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that, on the orders of the first respondent the investigation has been transferred to the Circle Inspector of Police, Varkala who shall hereafter be conducting the investigation.
4. I find that the grievance of the petitioner now stands redressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in crime No.40/07, the allegation under Section 307 I.P.C must also have been included. It has not been included so far. I do not wish to express any opinion on the question which would fetter the discretion of the present investigator to come to appropriate conclusion on that aspect and take necessary action. W.P.C.No.8817/07 3
5. In the light of the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, no further directions deserve to be issued. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.8817/07 4
ORDER21ST DAY OF JULY 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.