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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
POPULAR GROUP INVESTORS ASSOCIATION (PGIA) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY BINDU T.N. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 53 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR, SHRI.MANOJ V GEORGE, KUM.APARNA SOMARAJAN, SHRI.ASWIN K.R., SHRI.MATHEWS BENNY
For the Respondents: SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S

The High Court confirmed that jurisdiction under Article 226 does not allow direct interventions in FIR transfers or investigations, mandating victims to approach trial courts for remedies.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ Petition seeking transfer of FIR and further investigation - Petitioners sought to transfer an FIR to designated court under BUDS Act and called for a judicial inquiry into police negligence. - Maintainability questioned as petitioners must approach trial court for transfer and investigation orders, limiting the court’s jurisdiction under Article 226. (Paras 2, 5, 6)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Courts maintain discretion under Articles of the Constitution to issue directions only in circumstances where other remedies are inadequate, ensuring that procedural requirements are met. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a Writ Petition for directing the transfer of an FIR and judicial inquiry against negligent police investigation having persisted without due licensing from 2012.

Findings of Court:
The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the relevant trial court directly for appropriate redress, reaffirming the role of systemic procedures in ensuring judicial redress.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the High Court could directly intervene in the transfer of FIR and investigation matters when petitioners had avenues for recourse at trial courts.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court delineated the limits of jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing the necessity for petitioners to follow trial court procedures for matters concerning FIR transfer and further investigation.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. prayer for fir transfer and inquiry (Para 2)
2. filing of grievances in a proper manner (Para 3)
3. court's inability to entertain writ due to trial court remedies (Para 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (Crl) is filed with the following prayers:

"i. to issue a direction to transfer FIR No.1139/2014 and charge sheet filed if any from the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta to the designated Court, Ernakulam under the BUDS Act and order further investigation of the said FIR by Central Bureau of Investigation.

ii. to direct the State Government to constitute a judicial enquiry by a retired High Court Judge into negligent investigation done by the State Police and allowing the accused persons and their establishment to operate without license from 2012 onwards till date."

[SIC]

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a direction to transfer FIR No.1139/2014 and charge sheet filed, if any, from the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta to the designated Court, Ernakulam under the BUDS Act and order further investigation of the said FIR by Central Bureau of Investigation. The second prayer is to direct the State Government to constitute a judicial enquiry by a retired High Court Judge into negligent investigation done by the State Police and allowing the accused persons and their establishment to operate without a license from 2012 onwards till date.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

4. Admittedly, some of the victims filed a Crl. M.C No.2867/2015. Ext.P1 is the order in that Crl. M.C. In the said order itself stated that, if the petitioners in the above Crl. M.C have any further grievance, it is for them to agitate the same, in the manner known to law.

5. Admittedly, in this case, the final report is filed and the case is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, way back on 29.09.2018. If that is the case, if the petitioners want further investigation, the petitioners have to approach the tiral Court with an appropriate application, if the charge is not framed. If the petitioners want the case to be transferred to the BUDS Court, for that purpose also, the petitioners have to approach the Jurisdictional Court, if they are the victims, with an appropriate application bringing to notice of the Court that the BUDS Act provision is applicable. This Court, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , cannot entertain the prayers in this Writ Petition. I am of the considered opinion that, this Writ Petition is not maintainable as far as the prayer in this Writ Petition is concerned. Therefore, granting liberty to the petitioners to do the needful in accordance with law, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

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