Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MATTUMAL MOHAMMEDKUTTY versus THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MATTUMAL MOHAMMEDKUTTY v. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE - WP(C) No. 30588 of 2006(N) [2007] RD-KL 742 (10 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30588 of 2006(N)

1. MATTUMAL MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :10/01/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.C.No. 30588 of 2006 N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

The short grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 complaint filed by him about the commission of a cognizable offence on 15.10.2006, though received by the police, no action is being taken by the police on such complaint. This, it is alleged, is because of the influence exerted by the rivals of the petitioner.

2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor after taking instructions has filed a statement. It is admitted that Ext.P1 complaint about the incident which occurred on 15.10.06 has been received by the police.

3. Why then has no F.I.R. been registered? There is no contention that Ext.P1 does not reveal the commission of a cognizable offence. On receipt of such a complaint the respondent police is certainly bound to proceed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure by registering a crime. The decision in K.Moideenkutty Haji v. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 835) of the Division Bench of this Court adverting to precedents has made W.P.C.No. 30588 of 2006 2 the position very clear. I do not, in these circumstances, find any justification for the inaction of the police, who had admittedly received Ext.P1.

4. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The first respondent is directed to register a crime on the basis of Ext.P1 and conduct proper investigation. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the allegations, which will have to be ascertained in investigation and appropriate action taken.

5. Hand over copy of this judgment to the learned Prosecutor (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.