Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28853
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
JOSE – Appellant
Versus
AGASTHYANATH – Respondent
WA 642 2023
V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004), V.JAYA RAGI, R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL), NEERAJ NARAYAN, R.T.PRADEEP
An order for investigation does not imply an indictment against individuals involved and investigations must be impartial and fair.
Headnote:
Investigation - Writ Appeal - Not applicable - The court clarified that the order of investigation does not indicate indictment.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed by the father of the deceased, claiming suspicious death allegedly caused by respondents 7 to 10. The learned Single Judge ordered a CBCID investigation due to inadequate investigation by the 6th respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order for CBCID investigation was not an indictment of respondents 7 to 10, emphasizing the need for a fair and impartial investigation.
Issues: Whether the order of investigation by CBCID implies indictment of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the order for investigation does not amount to any prejudice against the respondents and must be conducted objectively.
Final Decision: The appeal is disposed of with clarification regarding the investigation order.
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
Writ appeal has been preferred by respondents 7 to 10, aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the father of the deceased, who alleged to have died in suspicious circumstances on 05.02.2022. The writ petition was filed, highlighting that the investigation was not properly conducted by the 6th respondent in the writ petition. It is alleged in the writ petition that the death of the writ petitioner's son was homicide at the hands of respondents 7 to 10.
2. The Learned Single Judge, after making certain observations, ordered an investigation by CBCID/4th respondent. Aggrieved by that direction, respondents 7 to 10 have approached this Court.
3. Based on the circumstances narrated in the judgment, the order of investigation will not indicate that respondents 7 to 10 have been indicted in the crime registered. The learned Single Judge only ordered the investigation by the CBCID. It can in no way be concluded that any of that investigation has been ordered as above on the premise that the appellants have been indicted with the above crime. CBCID have to investigate with an open mind, untrammelled by any observations. These observations are only for ordering reinvestigation, and it cannot be a basis for registering a crime or indicting the appellants. The investigation has to be conducted freely and fairly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations in the impugned judgment.
Clarifying the impugned order as above, the appeal stands disposed of.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
