SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Mathew M.M., S/o. Mani Mani & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Kanjirappally Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
WP(Crl.) No. 379 of 2021
Decided On : 21-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Toms Mathew.
For the Respondent: Government Pleader, Shaji Thomas, Gilbert George Correya, Jen Jaison, SR PP-Hrithwik C.S.

The court ruled that once a crime has been referred by police, no further writ intervention is warranted unless shown that justice requires such action.

Headnote:(A) Writ of Mandamus - Writ Petition (Crl) No. 379 of 2021 - High Court directed investigating agencies to expedite investigation into the lodged complaint. The petitioners sought various reliefs, including the formation of a Special Investigation Team. The court found that the crime has been referred by police, indicating no need for further orders. (Paras 1, 2)

(B) Scope of Writ Jurisdiction - The court's jurisdiction in issuing writs is to ensure effective and just legal remedies, without overstepping into administrative functions. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed by named petitioners requesting various writs regarding the investigation of a matter. The petition highlighted concerns over the thoroughness of the investigation and sought expeditious action by authorities.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that since the police had already referred the case, further intervention was unnecessary, leading to the closure of the petition.

Issues: The central issue revolved around the adequacy of the existing investigation and whether further orders were warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that no further orders were necessary as the police had already taken action and referred the case.

Result: Writ petition closed.

Table of Content
1. court assesses whether further orders are necessary (Para 2)

JUDGMENT :

The above writ petition (crl) is filed with following prayers :

“(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th respondents to expedite the investigation started from the lodging of Exhibit P24.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 6th respondent to constitute a Special Investigation Team to probe deeply into the boundless and diverse aspects of the facts and circumstances stated in the writ petition.

OR

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing any other independent investigating agency to probe into the aforesaid facts Band circumstances.

(iv) To call for all relevant records from the respondents herein which lead to the facts and circumstances stated in the writ petition.

(v) To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. Now, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the crime registered is already referred by the police. If that is the case, no further order is necessary.

Therefore, this writ petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top