Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15662
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
RAMSEENA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 679 2023
RAJESH CHAKYAT
High Courts should not intervene in police investigations unless procedural steps in lower courts are insufficient, as established by Supreme Court rulings.
Headnote:
Investigation - Crime Monitoring - Crime Registration and Investigation Guidelines - Supreme Court precedent on encouraging proper investigatory procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged inadequate investigation in Crime No. 203/2022 by Vadanapally Police, despite multiple complaints. The petitioner requested for a directive to assign a senior police officer for investigation and to consider a complaint forwarded to a higher authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the Supreme Court's directive discouraging High Court intervention in investigation matters unless proper procedural avenues at lower courts have been exhausted. The petitioner was advised to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate for monitoring the investigation appropriately.
Issues: Whether the High Court should intervene in a police investigation matter when adequate remedies are available at the lower level.
Ratio Decidendi: High Courts should refrain from intervening in investigative matters already governed by lower court processes, as upheld in relevant Supreme Court precedent, encouraging petitioners to utilize alternative remedies.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of, granting liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate for investigation monitoring.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner seeks for a direction to entrust the investigation of a crime to a Senior Police Officer, not below the rank of the 4th respondent and also for a direction to consider Ext.P3 complaint by the 3rd respondent.
2. Basically the petitioner complains that despite registering Crime No. 203/2022 of Vadanapally Police Station, no serious investigation has taken place. Despite repeated requests and complaints, the investigating officer has not conducted a proper investigation, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner. It is in such circumstances, that petitioner approached the District Police Chief with Ext. P2 petition. Even thereafter, no effective investigation has been place.
3. In the decision inSakri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [ (2008) 2 SCC 409 ] the Supreme Court had held that the High Courts must discourage the tendency of the complainants to approach he High Court with petitions seeking registration of crimes or for monitoring of investigations, especially when such remedies are available before the Court of first instance.
4. Since the petitioner is complaining of lack of an effective investigation, he is at liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate in an appropriate petition. If such a petition is filed, the same shall be properly looked into and action in accordance with law be taken.
Therefore reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law, seeking monitoring of investigation in Crime No.203/2022 of Vadanapally Police Station, this writ petition is disposed of.
sd/
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 679/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE BANK Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R AND F.I STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.203/2022 OF VADANAPALLY POLICE STATION Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION /COMPLAINT DATED 29.03.2022 BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT
