High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-07-11Review Petition allowed; Writ Petition disposed...

P. Narayanan and Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:RP.No. 421 of 2011(Q)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Ramkumar
Judgment Date: 2011-07-11
Court Decision / Holding: The judgment under review is set aside and the Review Petition is allowed. The court directs the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara, Kochi, to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and to file a supplementary final report within three months, with supervision by the Commissioner of Police, Kochi. The trial court shall not proceed with C.C. No. 1519 of 2010 till the supplementary report is filed. Copies of this order shall be forwarded to the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kochi.
Final Disposition: Review Petition allowed; Writ Petition disposed of afresh with directions for further investigation under Cr.P.C. 173(8); supplementary final report to be filed within three months; trial court to refrain from proceedings in CC 1519/2010 until then; supervision by Commissioner of Police, Kochi.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Narayanan
Anil Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala rep by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakara
The Circle Inspector of Police, Hill Palace, Thripunithura
The Sub Inspector of Police, E.T. South Police Station, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, Senior Advocate
• M. Chandra Bose
• A. Rajasimhan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri C.S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment concerns Review Petition No. 421 of 2011 (Q) in W.P.(C) No. 15423 of 2010, filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by P. Narayanan and Anil Kumar, challenging the order in a writ petition seeking to entrust the investigation of Crime No. 432 of 2010 (Ernakulam Town South) under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to a senior police officer. The petitioners, a father and son, contend that the writ petition was decided on incorrect information supplied by the investigating authorities, and that the case remained at the crime stage despite misstatements. They rely on Right to Information disclosures showing that although the investigation was completed by 30 April 2010, the charge sheet was filed only on 27 July 2010 and cognizance was subsequently taken. The Government Pleader had submitted that the final report had already been filed and that the writ petition was decided in light of instructions from the Investigating Officer. The court, noting the supervening facts and the need to uncover the truth, permits further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., to be supervised by the Commissioner of Police, Kochi, with a supplementary final report to be filed within three months. The judgment under review is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of afresh as above.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 3-5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.Right to Information Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of incorrect information supplied by the investigating authorities, and that the case remained at the crime stage. They relied on RTI disclosures showing that although investigation concluded by 30 April 2010, the charge sheet was filed only on 27 July 2010 and cognizance was later taken, raising concerns of false implication and the need for independent verification. They urged that proper steps under Cr.P.C. 173(8) be taken to ensure the truth.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the writ petition disposal was in line with information and instructions from the Investigating Officer, that the final report had already been filed, and that the case was not at the crime stage when the writ petition was decided. They emphasized the need for orderly proceeding and maintaining the existing legal process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.	2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)	Positive	Cited as authority for permitting further investigation under Cr.P.C. 173(8) and for recognizing the need to pursue truth when the record indicates potential misstatements or ongoing investigation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. Narayanan and Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 421 of 2011(Q) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15423/2010 Dated 11/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.NARAYANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, (EX-MLA)LAKSHINARAYANIYIL HOUSE, NADUVILA VILLAGE,VAIKOM 2. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 34 S/O.P.NARAYANAN,LAKSHMINARAYANIYIL HOUSE, VAIKOM, NOW RESIDING AT THEVARA, MATTUMMEL SUDHARMA ROAD, MOOLAMANIL WEST, HIGHER FLAT NO. 3 APARTMENT BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RP.No. 421 of 2011(Q) -:2:- 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, - HILL PALACE, THRIPUNITHURA 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - E.T.SOUTH POILCE STATION, - ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 421 of 2011(Q) -:3:- ## APPENDIX Annexure A1: True copy of the newspaper report appeared in Mangalam Newspaper on 24-1-200 Annexure A2: True copy of the newspaper report appeared in Mathrubhoomy newspaper on 3-2-2008 Annexure A3 : True copy of the letter dated 20-2-2008 written by the then President of TDB Annexure A4: True copy of the minutes of the TDB meeting dated 217-2008 Annexure-A5: True copy of the newspaper report appeared in the Mangalam dated 1-2-2008 Annexure A5 (a) - True copy of the newspaper report appeared in the Malayala Manorama dated 17-1-2008 Annexure A5 (b): True copy of the news item apapeared in Kerala Kaumudi Newspaper on 17-1-2008 Annexure A6: True copy of the birth certificate dated 15-5-2010 Annexure- A7: True copy of the reply letter dated 3-10-2010 Annexure A8: True copy of the reply letter dated 15-12-2010 Annexure A9: True copy of the reply dated 5-8-2010 Annexure A10: True copy of the reply dated 5-8-2010 Annexure A11: True copy of the reply dated 7-10-2010 Annexure A12: True copy of the certificate dated 17-3-2010. ## V. RAMKUMAR, J. ........................................................ Review Petition No. 421 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 15423 of 2010 ......................................................... Dated: 11-07-2011 ## ORDER The review petitioners are the petitioners in the above Writ Petition which was filed with a prayer for entrusting the investigation of Crime No. 432 of 2010 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station with a responsible police officer of superior grade. 2. The petitioners are a father and son of whom the son is the first accused and his wife is the 2nd accused in the above crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 3 to 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 3. On 11-6-2010 when the Writ Petition came up for final hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the final report had already been filed on 30-04-2010 before Review Petition No. 421 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 15423 of 2010 -:2:- the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam . In view of the above submission, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition permitting the petitioners to move the trial Court for appropriate orders in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. - 2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC). 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the submission made before this Court was a wrong submission since the final report had not been filed as on 11-6-2010. The petitioners claim to have obtained the correct information under the Right to Information Act to the effect that even though the investigation was completed on 30-04-2010, the charge sheet was actually filed only on 27-7-2010. The above information is revealed by Annexure A11 reply obtained from the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act. The above information obtained by the petitioners is correct in the light of the letter dated 27-06-2011 received from the Review Petition No. 421 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 15423 of 2010 -:3:- Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.O.), Ernakulam. 5. I am given to understand that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offences and has taken the case on file as C.C. 1519 of 2010. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the submission made by him while disposing of the Writ Petition was in tune with the instructions given to him by the Investigating Officer. He also produced for perusal by this Court the said written instructions which he had obtained from the Investigating Officer. Whether the instructions given to the Government Pleader was intentional or unintentional, the fact remains that acting on the said information this Court disposed of the Writ Petition on the footing that the case was no more in the crime stage. But, as a matter of fact on 11-6-2010 when this Court disposed of the Writ Petition, the case was still in the crime stage . This Court also cannot ignore the supervening fact that pursuant to the Review Petition No. 421 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 15423 of 2010 -:4:- filing of the final report, cognizance of the offence has already been taken by the Magistrate. The circumstances highlighted by the petitioners and the social standing of the Ist petitioner persuade this Court to think that the 2[nd] petitioner and his wife could be the victims of false implication and a further investigation alone will probably bring to light the truth. Now, at this stage of the case, it will be unjust to drive the petitioners to the trial Court with a request for further investigation. I am, therefore, of the view that interests of justice will be adequately met by directing the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakkara, Kochi to conduct further investigation of the case under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and to file a supplementary final report in accordance with the further investigation so conducted. The Commissioner of Police, Kochi shall supervise the further investigation to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner. The supplementary final report shall be filed before the Addl. Review Petition No. 421 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 15423 of 2010 -:5:- Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Officences) Ernakulam within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial court shall not proceed with C.C. No. 1519 of 2010 till then. The judgment under review is set aside and the Review Petition is allowed. The Writ Petition is disposed of afresh as above. Copies of this order shall be forwarded to the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kochi. Dated this the 11[th] day of July, 2011. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge Review Petition No. 421 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 15423 of 2010 -:6:- Review Petition No. 421 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 15423 of 2010 -:7:-