Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33017
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.RAMKUMAR, J
K.N.VIJAYAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, – Respondent
WP(C)/24165/2010
SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
The proper recourse for parties in an ongoing trial is to seek resolution through the trial court rather than through higher courts.
Headnote:
Legal - Scheduled Castes and Tribes - IPC Sections - The court discussed the provisions under IPC and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, emphasizing the importance of proper investigation and the jurisdiction of the trial court in such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, alleging an indiscriminate trespass and violence by the accused on his property, sought a direction for their arrest and recovery of materials, claiming there was undue influence preventing action by authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to seek further investigation through the trial court, as the case was pending before the Sessions Court.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could seek a direction to arrest the accused and obtain a supplementary report despite the ongoing proceedings in the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the appropriate legal remedy in pending matters is to approach the trial court rather than seek intervention through writ petitions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to approach the trial court for further investigation.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.78/1998 of Muhamma Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 (i) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent Dy.S.P, Cherthala to arrest accused Nos.1 to 7 and to recover material objects and to file supplementary final report in pursuance of Ext.P2 final report.
2. According to the petitioner, who claims to be belonging to the Schedule Caste, on 12.4.1998 at about 8 P.M the accused and other persons criminally trespassed upon his property and committed the aforementioned offences in the process of forcibly cutting open a pathway through the property of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that originally the case was investigated by the Circle Inspector of Police, Mararikulam and the petitioner had to move this Court for a direction to have the investigation conducted by the appropriate officer authorized to do so under the provisions of the Special Act and accordingly the Dy.S.P, Cherthala conducted the investigation. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that, even though the Dy.S.P, Cherthala conducted the investigation and filed Ext.P2 final report before the court against the eight accused persons of whom one is no more, none of the accused persons was arrested nor any incriminating material recovered at their instance for the reason that they are either persons belonging to the ruling party CPI(M) or otherwise influential. Hence this writ petition.
3. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakkiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008 (1) KLT (724) SC and also of the Division Bench of this Court in Thomas V.C v. Achama Thomas and another 2009 (2)
KHC 693, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the trial court itself. The case is admittedly pending before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha as S.C.No.281/2008. In case the petitioner files an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, that Court shall consider the said application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after perusing the case diary. Reserving the above right of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
