S. Sankarasubban, J.

The Petitioner in the above Original Petition - Sabu George - is a complainant in Crime No. 32/96 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint is that he was brutally manhandled and falsely made an accused in a fabricated case by some police officials of the State. The accused, in the complaint, included the present Additional Director General of Police, The Sub Inspector of Police, Pala, Circle Inspector of Police, Pala, Additional Sub Inspector of Police. Fort Police Station, Circle Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station and some other persons. When the police refused to register the case and investigate into the matter, the petitioner filed O.P. 10412/1995 for a direction to register the case and investigate his complaint. By judgment dated 11.12.1995, the Original Petition was allowed. The judgment directed the police to register a case and investigate into the complaint. Thereafter an F.I.R. was registered against the police officials and others for offences under Ss.120(B), 506,363, 323,465 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The first accused in the Crime-Joseph Thomas - filed Writ Appeal against the above judgment as W.A. No. 148/1996. Writ Appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 11.12.1997. It directed the investigating officials to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. According to the petitioner, in compliance with the judgment, the second respondent, viz., the Director General of Police, by order dated 23.12.1997 authorised the third respondent - Sri. Chandrasekharan IPS, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range - to investigate the case. The third respondent appointed the 4th respondent - Sri. Reghupathy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram City - as officer to conduct the investigation and to assist him. According to the petitioner, the first accused and others made all attempts to thwart the investigation. But, the 4th respondent started the investigation, recorded the statement of the petitioner and 30 other persons. The petitioner submits that the 4th respondent submitted a detailed report, on the basis of the evidence led in the case, with a finding that the accused had committed the offences. In the meanwhile the time limit expired and, therefore, the third respondent sought extension of time for completing the investigation. The petitioner further submits that the third respondent directed the 4th respondent to stop further investigation and appointed another person, by name Hithapalan Nair, Dy. S.P., to conduct the investigation afresh. According to the petitioner, all on a sudden the pattern and style of investigation changed. The witnesses were threatened of dire consequences if they give evidence against the accused. The petitioner was aggrieved by the conduct of the third respondent in suddenly changing the investigating officer. According to the petitioner, he lost all confidence in third respondent and he will not get a fair and impartial investigation in the case. Hence, he approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to personally conduct the investigation in Crime No. 32/96 and for other consequential reliefs.

3. After the filing of the Original Petition the petitioner filed C.M.P.21327/1998. After admitting the Original Petition, by order dated 5.6.1998 this Court directed the Government Pleader to produce all records including the 161 statements recorded by the 4th respondent and the preliminary report submitted by him for perusal of the Court. C.M.P. 21327/1998 was filed to bring to the notice of the Court that the third respondent had filed Ext. P13 Refer Report with regard to Crime No. 32/96. Through the above C.M.P. the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the impropriety with which the third respondent acted in filing a Refer Report when the entire matter is before this Court. Hence,