The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality and correctness of the investigation, affirmed by the Supreme Court, which concluded that no further intervention was warranted.

Subhashan Reddy, C.J.

These three writ petitions have been filed as pro bono publico seeking action against Mr. P.K. Kunhalikutty who was a Cabinet Minister in the present Government till first week of January of this year, but later resigned. He is the 2nd respondent in W.P.C.No.33821/2004, 1st respondent in W.P.C.No.34015/2004 and 4th respondent in W.P.C.No.34301/2004. Allegations are common to him to the effect that he is involved in the offences committed under Crime No.282/1997 of Nadakavu Police Station, Kozhikode. The above crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Anweshi Women’s Counseling Center alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 361, 366(A) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. One Ms. Sreedevi was alleged to be running commercial sex center under the guise of running an ice cream parlor. Now, it is famously called as ‘Ice cream parlor sex scandal’. No others were specifically named except the above lady and basing upon the said complaint lodged on 6-8-1997, Police swung into action and arrested the above lady who was arrayed as the first accused and later on, after investigation 15 more were added to the list of the accused making a total of 16 accused, and, according to the Police, the offences with which the above accused punishable are under Sections 366, 109 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(ia), (c) and (d) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The above 16 accused were identified by the police basing upon the evidence collected during investigation. After the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Magistrate which has been committed the case to Sessions Court and the same is pending trial in Sessions Case No.124 of 2002.

3. In these writ petitions, though several facts are stated, but all lead to seeking of one main prayer, i.e. to prosecute Mr. P.K. Kunhalikutty who is hereinafter referred to as the ‘1st respondent’. The allegations are that he has got political clout being Secretary of Indian Union of Muslim League (IUML) and being the powerful Minister in the State Cabinet he was wielding great influence and because of the exertion of influence and money power, the Kerala Government and its crime investigating agency have saved him from prosecution in spite of availability of abundant evidence against him. He is alleged to have indulged in sex with one Ms. Rejina during the year 1997 and that she was a minor at that time and that, being economically poor, she was unlawfully exploited for minority considerations.

4. Anweshi Women’s Counseling Center led by Ms. Ajitha had lodged a complaint on 6-8-1997 pursuing the case vigorously. When the charge sheet was sought to be filed by the Police after investigation, she has sought for further investigation by another agency on the ground that the investigation conducted by state police was inadequate and fallacious for the reason that the State police were under the influence of the 1st respondent and that he was also being saved by the Government of the day because of political clout he enjoyed. She has filed O.P.No.18484/1997 before the Kerala High Court seeking investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation. Another person, namely Kulakkadan Moosa also filed another writ petition, O.P.No.18520/1997, for the very same relief. After hearing the matters, a learned Single Judge, by common judgment dated 30-7-1998, dismissed the above writ petitions holding that there was no case made out for ordering CBI investigation either on facts or in law. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed in W.A.Nos.1630 and 1717 of 1998. W.A.No.1630/1998 came up first before the Division Bench and was dismissed on 13-8-1998 and the same reasoning was followed while dismissing W.A.No.1717/1998 by judgment dated 28-8-1998. The matter was then carried to the Supreme Court and SLP (Crl)No.3725/1998 was filed against the judgment in W.A.No.1717/1998 and, thereaft