Alakkal Ragesh v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/28TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6187 of 2015 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER:
----------- ALAKKAL RAGESH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN, BUSINESS ALAKKAL HOUSE, POST KOTTALI, PUZHATHI AMSOM DESOM KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS:
-------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.
3. K.M.SUDHA RAJAGOPALAN, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.CHANDUKUTTY, SAROVARAM HOUSING COLONY, NEAR JUNIOR TECHNICAL SCHOOL, VANITHA ITI ROAD, POST THOTTADA, KANNUR-670 007.
R1 & 2 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.MAYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 6187 of 2015 (W) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
--------------------- EXT.P1- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.06.2013.
EXT.P2- COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 05.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P3- COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09.09.2013 AS CMP NO.5061/2013 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY EXT.P4- COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.705 OF 2013 OF THE EDAKKAD POLICE STATION EXT.P5- COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.626 OF 2013 BEFORE THE EDAKKAD POLICE STATION RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab
P.UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.6187 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The writ petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.705/2013 involving the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks a writ of mandamus directing the police to expedite investigation effectively and properly and submit final report without any delay. Now there is a report by the Sub Inspector of Police, Edakkad that investigation is practically over, that necessary steps have been taken to have the disputed document compared by hand writing expert, and that final report could be submitted soon on getting report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. In such a situation, this writ petition need not proceed. I find that a direction to the police to expedite steps and submit report without any delay will satisfy the writ petitioner. In the result, this writ petition is closed, with direction to the investigating officer to expedite steps to have the disputed documents compared by a handwriting expert and submit final report without any delay.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab