Binoy V vs State of Kerala & Others (W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022)

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(CRL.) NO. 1118 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.167/2017 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` BINOY V AGED 51 YEARS REMABHAVANAM, MAHADEVIKAD MURI, MAHADEVIKAD P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690516 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.SREEKUMAR RENOY VINCENT HELEN P.A. ARUN ROY SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI ATHUL ROY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` - `2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001` - `3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688001` - `4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER` W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022 -:2:- ``` HARIPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, HARIPAD, PIN – 690514 5LEKHA N, PUTHENVEETTIL, PUTHIYAVILA, PATTOLI MARKET P O, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-, PIN – 690531 6G USHA POST OFFICE MADOM, KARUVATTA, KARUVATTA P O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690517 BY ADV C.N.PRABHAKARAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022 -:3:- ## **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =================== W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022 ===================** _Dated this 10[th] day of August, 2023_ ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner inter alia, seeks for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to conduct further investigation into Crime No.167/2017 of Harippad Police Station. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to conduct an enquiry into the irregularities committed in the investigation into the aforesaid crime and take action against persons who committed such irregularities. 2. Petitioner and the 5[th] respondent were in a matrimonial relationship. Since there were disputes in the relationship, an attempt was made by the 5[th] respondent to obtain certain information. It is alleged that, the application submitted by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act was misused by the 5[th] respondent to fabricate a request to obtain certain details of the Sister-in-law of the petitioner with intent to create trouble in their family relationship. On enquiry, petitioner realised that, the 5[th] respondent had committed illegalities with the aid of the 6[th] respondent and hence, a complaint was filed as Crime No. 167/2017 of Harippad Police Station. W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022 ## -:4:- 3. As per the allegations in the aforementioned crime, the accused are alleged to have forged the signature and the handwriting of the petitioner and submitted a forged application under the Right to Information Act and committed the offences under Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, a final report was filed on 04.02.2019, referring the case as mistake of fact, as evident from Ext.P6. Petitioner contends that, no proper investigation has been conducted and that, the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer are based on no materials and also that the investigation was conducted malafide with a purposeful intention to shield the culprits. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4[th] respondent on 24.02.2023, stating that a full-fledged investigation has been conducted and the crime was referred as mistake of fact and even though notice was served on the petitioner, since he had not filed any objection or protest complaint, the learned Magistrate accepted the refer report and closed the proceedings. It was also pointed out that, the specimen signatures of the persons against whom allegations were raised were taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. But it was returned stating that, more specimen signatures or handwritings were required. However, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that, the case is required to be closed as mistake of fact. W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022 ## -:5:- Despite the above, it was mentioned in the statement that, Investigating Officer is ready to initiate the necessary steps for forensic examination, if ordered by the court. 5. Considering the nature of allegations and the nature of the order being issued, notice to respondents 5 and 6 are dispensed with. 6. Petitioner alleged forgery of his signature and handwriting. The Investigating Officer had, during the course of investigation into Crime No.167/2017 of Harippad Police Station, obtained sample signatures of the accused and sent it for forensic examination. However, the Forensic Science Laboratory returned the sample without analysing it, requesting for further information and also to provide additional sample signatures for the purpose of an effective analysis. By letter dated 03.04.2018, the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, requested the Investigating Officer to furnish the details requested, for carrying out the analysis. Without complying with the requisition from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the crime was referred as a mistake of fact as per Ext.P6. 7. On a perusal of the final report, it is noticed that the requisition letter requesting for further inputs issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 03.04.2018 was forwarded to the Investigating Officer from the court. Without re-sending the sample for analysis, in deference to the letter dated 03.04.2018, the Investigating W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022 ## -:6:- Officer filed the final report on 04.02.2019, referring the case as ‘mistake of fact’. 8. The manner in which the investigation was conducted is curious and does not reflect a proper investigation much less any investigation at all. Once the sample of handwriting and signatures were send for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory and a requisition is received in return requesting for furnishing further samples, it was essential for the Investigating Officer to resubmit the documents for analysis after providing the details sought for. Failure to comply with such a requisition indicates an inept investigation. The nature of investigation conducted by the 4[th] respondent creates doubt on the propriety in which the investigation was conducted into the crime. The final report cannot be acted upon at all. ## 9. In the decision in _**Vinay Thyagi vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak &**_ _**others** [2013 (5) SCC 762]_ the Supreme Court had held that, when the investigation does not inspire confidence, a Constitutional Court is entitled to set aside the final report and direct a re-investigation or a further investigation as the case may be. 10. Applying the dictum in the aforesaid case, this Court is of the opinion that, the investigation conducted into Crime No.167/2017 of Harippad Police Station does not inspire confidence in this Court and was unfair. The final report filed in the said crime is bereft of material W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022 ## -:7:- particulars and is prepared in a slipshod manner without containing the basic materials. Hence, the final report is liable to be set aside, notwithstanding the acceptance of the same by the learned Magistrate. 11. In the result, the final report filed in Crime No.167/2017 of Harippad Police Station, which is produced as Ext.P6 in this writ petition is hereby set aside. Considering the nature of allegations which includes forgery, a re- investigation is essential. Therefore, there will be a further direction to the 3[rd] respondent to direct a re-investigation to be conducted by a competent officer other than the person who conducted the earlier investigation, which resulted in Ext.P6. Writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE** Jka/10.08.23. -:8:- ## W.P.(Crl).No.1118 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF W.P(CRL.).NO.1118/2022`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION`| ||`REPORT IN CRIME NO 167 OF 2017 OF`| ||`HARIPAD POLICE STATION.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON`| ||`04.02.2019 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP C NO`| ||`6344 OF 2019 DATED 2.7.2019.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED`| ||`29.7.2019 ISSUED FROM THE JUDICIAL FIRST`| ||`CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, HARIPAD.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS IN`| ||`RC/58/2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS`| ||`MAGISTRATE COURT.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT`| ||`SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO 167 OF 2017.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.4.2018`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`|