WP(C) No. 30612 of 2011 · Kerala High Court

WP(C).No. 30612 of 2011 (B) APPENDIXPETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:EXT P1 :COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.208/2002 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. EXT P2 :COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT P3 :COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.208/2002 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. EXT P4 :COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR. EXT P5 :COPY OF THE LIST OF PROPERTY. EXT P6 :COPY OF THE CONFESSION STATEMENT OF ACCUSED ODAYIL PRAKASH.EXT P7 :COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.2.2010 IN WP(C) NO.32853/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT P8 :COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2011 IN Crl.M.P NO.1940/2010 IN S.C. NO.16/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC I ), KASARGOD.EXT P9 :COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY P.K. DHANANJAYA BABU, DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID BEFORE THE SESSION COURT, KASARGOD.RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL.// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.---------------------------------------W.P. (c) NO.30612 of 2011 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 05th day of June, 2012JUDGMENTPetitioner who is the editor of a newspaper, has filed the above writ petition seeking a writ/direction/order for handing over the investigation of a crime registered as CrimeNo.208/2002 of Hosdurg Police Station, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The aforesaid crime was registered on allegations that the petitioner and also a watchman of his press were brutally assaulted by some persons consequent to publication of some new news item detrimental to the interest of someone related to one among the assailants. Previously, after completion of the investigation, final report was laid before the Magistrateand since the indictment levelled against the accused included an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While so petitioner approached this court with a writ petition complaining of non action on the representation sent by him W.P. (c) NO.30612 of 2011 2before higher Police authority complaining of impropriety and irregularity over the investigation conducted and report filed before the court. That writ petition was disposed by Ext.P7judgment directing the petitioner to move the court before which the case was then pending to canvass his grievance and seek for appropriate direction/order including orders for further investigation in the case if such a case could be made out.

After passing of Ext.P7 order petitioner filed a petition before the Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc-I, Kasargod, before whom the case was awaiting trial after committal seeking further investigation. His application was allowed vide Ext.P8 order by which the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kannur, was directed to conduct further investigation taking note of the circumstances presented by the petitioner, one among the victims in the case. Investigation ordered by the court through the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, was not carried out by that officer, but, entrusted to a lower level officer, and without looking into and considering various circumstances pointed out by him in his petition a final report has been filed W.P. (c) NO.30612 of 2011 3before the court, is the case of the petitioner in the present writ petition, to seek for writ/directions as indicated earlier. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the CentralBureau of Investigation pointing out that a report has already been filed before the court after the completion of the investigation contended that at this stage the question of further investigation without looking into the merit of that report by the court before which such report was filed, is not permissible.

Learned Government Pleader submits that after filing of the report summons have been issued to the accused for appearance and further trial. If at all the petitioner has any challenge over the final report laid after further investigation of the crime he can approach the Sessions Judge and make his submissions for appropriate directions/orders, is the further submission. This court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit in judgment over the final report already laid before the court in which steps are being taken in accordance with law. Petitionercan no doubt move an application before the Sessions Judge W.P. (c) NO.30612 of 2011 4why the report filed is unacceptable, and seek appropriatedirections/orders in the matter. Reserving the right of the petitioner to make his submissions before the Sessions Judgewith respect to his challenges against the final report, and also to seek for further direction over investigation of the crime, provided there are sustainable grounds to do so, the petition isclosed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.DMR/-