Balakrishnan v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Police And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2015/15TH ASHADHA, 193 WP(C).No. 34304 of 2010 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------- BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.PERAVAKKUTTY, AGED 49, RESIDING AT MALAYIL HOUSE, THALAKKULATTHOOR PO.
BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NARCOTIC CELL, CALICUT CITY, PIN - 673 001.
2. V.K.RAGHAVAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELATHUR POLICE STATION, ELATHUR P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673303.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL) SRI.K.RATHISH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 34304 of 2010 (K) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 :
TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.11.08 SUBMITTED BY THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE.
EXT. P2 :
COPY OF THE DEPARTMENTAL ORAL ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 19.10.09.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------- W.P(C). No.34304 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 06th day of July, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner was implicated in a crime, in which he was not involved. The petitioner's case is that, the petitioner had not been in good terms with his neighbour. The neighbour by name Damodaran Nair had apprehended a 3rd party, who had been removing sandal trees from another neighbour's property. The said Damodaran Nair is alleged to have influenced the 2nd respondent and implicated the petitioner also in the said crime.
2. A complaint was filed by the petitioner's wife before the City Police Commissioner, which was enquired into and found to be baseless by Ext.P2 report. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 report. However, it is to be noticed that the report itself is of the year 2010 and by passage of considerable time, the criminal case
WP(C) No.34304 of 2010 itself would have ended, either in conviction or acquittal of the accused. If at all the criminal case has not been concluded, then the petitioner would have his remedies to raise all his contentions before the Criminal Court and eventually if need be initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution.
Nothing survives in the writ petition. The writ petition would stand closed without this Court making any observations on the merits of the case.
Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp