Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13966
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
A.P. VARGHESE,
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 742 2022
S.RAJEEV, V.VINAY, M.S.ANEER, PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH, SARATH K.P., SRI RENJITH TR, PP ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA, MANU S., ASG OF INDIA
Article 21 ensures the right to a fair investigation and trial, mandating appropriate steps by the concerned authorities.
Headnote:
Writ - Investigation - Article 21 - Fair Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates fair investigation and trial. The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation for further investigation and comply within a month.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a defacto complainant in a criminal case, challenged the final report of an investigation, alleging malafides and sought a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, requesting a re-investigation by a specialized agency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's concerns and directed the second respondent to consider the representation for further investigation in accordance with the law, ensuring timely communication of the decision to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the investigation report was affected by malafides, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a re-investigation by a specialized agency for a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Article 21 guarantees the right to a fair investigation and trial; therefore, the second respondent must reassess the representation for further investigation.
Final Decision: The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation and communicate the decision within one month.
ORDER
This writ petition (criminal) is filed with following prayers:
(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 final report and quash the same as vitiated by malafides and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner for a fair investigation and fair trial or pass such orders in Ext.P4 as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to conduct de-novo investigation in allegations in Crime No.2422/2014 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam and Ext.P5 representation by handing over the investigation to a specialized investigation agency like the State Crime Branch by constituting a Special Investigation Team with officers of the State Crime Branch specialized in investigation of economic offences of proven investigative prowess and integrity under the leadership of the 5th respondent or the 7th respondent as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to see that such investigation as requested to be ordered herein above is completed in a time bound manner as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court, without any further delay with a direction to the 5th / 7th respondent to file periodic reports before this Hon'ble Court.
(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
[SIC]
2. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.2422/2014 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. The petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation conducted in this case, which resulted in Ext.P4 final report. The petitioner submitted his grievance in Ext.P7 before the 2nd respondent.
It is submitted that the same is not considered.
3. I think there can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 and take appropriate steps in accordance with law and intimate the result to the petitioner within a time frame.
Therefore, this writ petition (criminal) is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 and take appropriate steps in accordance with law regarding the prayer of the petitioner for further investigation and intimate the decision to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment.
2. The trial in C.C.No.134/2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam shall be deferred till a decision is taken as directed above.
3. The 2nd respondent will inform the Court also about the decision taken in Ext.P7.
4. The petitioner will produce certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
2422/2014 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTARIZED AGREEMENT DATED
24/07/2009.
Exhibit P3 THE CHART SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE ACCOMMODATION CHEQUES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE BHAGYASREE FOOD TECHNOLOGIES P. LIMITED.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2422/2014 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION WITH CONNECTED DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE 6TH RESPONDENT BY CW-3.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENT OF CW-2, REGI MATHEW IN CRIME NO.
2422/2014 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/07/2022 ALONG WITH RECEIPT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/07/2022 ALONG WITH RECEIPT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/07/2022 ALONG WITH RECEIPT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
