Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
T.A. SAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 261/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU, SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH, SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A., SHRI.ABHISHEK M. KUNNATHU, SRI.BOBAN PALAT, SRI.P.U.PRATHEESH KUMAR, SRI.P.R.AJAY, SHRI.K.U.SWAPNIL, SHRI.PRANAV USHAKAR, SMT.SWETHA BIJUMON
For the Respondents: SRI.HRITHWIK C.S-SR.PP
The defacto complainant may seek further investigation through the jurisdictional court if they challenge the initial investigation's adequacy.
Headnote:The writ petition seeks a mandamus for a fair investigation, alleging improper prior investigation under Sec. 506(2) IPC and Sec. 117(b) of the Kerala Police Act. The court permits the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court with applications under Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C., allowing for potential further investigation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requests investigation into police misconduct. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the alleged improper investigation are raised. (Para 2) |
| 3. the court allows granting liberty to approach the jurisdictional court. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
a) “Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, either a further investigation or a re-investigation into the case, incorporating all relevant sections omitted in the initial documents by recalling Exhibit P3;
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction transferring the investigation to a superior investigating agency, such as the Crime Branch or any other independent investigating authority, since the police officials involved are under the shade of suspicion;
c) Direct the Respondents to take appropriate disciplinary and legal action against the police officials responsible for the deliberate omissions, lapses, and biased investigation;
d) Direct the Respondents to produce the original CCTV footage along with compliance under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act ;
e) Direct the Respondents to include all relevant evidence, including the movement register of the police jeep, the omitted statements, and the names of the other accused persons mentioned in the investigation report;
f) Pass any other orders as may be deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice.”[sic]
2. The petitioner seeks further investigation in Ext.P3 final report. The offence alleged in Ext.P3 is Sec. 506(2) IPC and 117(b) of the Kerala Police Act. According to the petitioner, the investigation conducted by the investigating officer is not proper. It is also submitted that CCTV footage is available and the same is not seized. It is also submitted that the victim is threatened by the culprit using a police jeep. It is also submitted that, Sec.65B of the Evidence Act certificate is not produced along with the electronic devices.
3. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Admittedly, the final report is filed and the case is pending before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation, the petitioner can approach the jurisdictional court with an application under Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another [2019 (5) KHC 352] observed that the defacto complainant can approach the jurisdictional court with an application under Sec.173(8) Cr.P.C., if there is any defect in the investigation.
Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court with appropriate application in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of.
