Court may dismiss writ petitions where no interference in ongoing investigations is deemed necessary.

JUDGMENT

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:-

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a proper, fair, and impartial investigation in Crime No. 679/2025 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad, and to proceed in accordance with law.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order call for the records in Crime No. 679 of 2025 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad and direct the respondents 3 & 4 to produce progress report of investigation in Crime No. 679/2025 till date, detailing all steps taken (if any); including dates of enquiry, witnesses examined, documents collected, and reasons for non-arrest of accused despite cognizable offences involving public record forgery by officials.

(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing independent investigation by a different officer of Circle Inspector rank from outside Palakkad Town South Police Jurisdiction into Crime No.

679/2025, who shall complete thorough investigation within 30 days by arresting all accused, seize Panchayat marriage documents, conduct FSL forensic analysis, record witness statements, collect digital evidence, and file charge-sheet.

(iv) The Hon’ble court may be dispense with the filing of translation of Vernacular document.

(v) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts of the case.

2. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.679 of 2025 of Palakkad Town South Police Station. The petitioner alleges that the police are not conducting a proper investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the police are effectively conducting investigation in the matter. It appears from the pleadings in the writ petition that a DV case has been filed against the petitioner based on a complaint filed by respondent No.5.

Having regard to the pleadings in the writ petition and the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that no interference in the investigation is required.

Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.