SIVARAJAN v. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
This petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 304B, 306
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM.
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.31112 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the brother of the deceased in respect of whose death, crime has been registered alleging offences punishable under Section 306 and 304B read with 34 I.P.C. The petitioner's sister was a highly educated woman having qualifications of M.A., M.Phil, B.Ed. and S.E.T. She met with her death on the morning of 07/08/2008. Crime has been registered initially under the caption unnatural death. Investigation is in progress. Now allegations have been raised under Sections 306 and 304B read with 34 I.P.C against the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. According to the petitioner, a proper investigation is not being conducted by the local police. It is prayed that investigation may be handed over and left in safe and more efficient hands.
2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. After discussions at the Bar, the learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that the State, though it does not concede that proper investigation has not been conducted, is W.P.C.No.31112/08 2 now willing to ensure that the investigation is entrusted to the Crime Branch C.I.D, Ernakulam.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the said offer. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that It is not necessary to delve deeper into the matter and refer to the contentions which have been raised before me in detail. I am satisfied that the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor can be accepted and orders can be passed accordingly.
Operative part
4. a) b) In the result, This petition is allowed. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is accepted and it is directed that the investigation shall be handed over to the C.B.C.I.D, Ernakulam by issuing appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of thirty days from this date.
Compliance shall be reported to this court. A copy of the order so entrusting the investigation to the CBCID shall be issued to the petitioner herein also. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) W.P.C.No.31112/08 3 W.P.C.No.31112/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 304B, 306.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 20 Nov 2008. The bench was R BASANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.