RADHA v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P S P S GOPINATHAN
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the second
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS: --------------
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 005.
ANIL, S/O. DHARMAN, KARUMBALAVEEDU, AYYANKAMAM WARD, PARASSALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005 R1 TO R3 BY STATE ATTORNEY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 33372/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1122/2011 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // Knc/- P.S. TO JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) 33372 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: i. ii. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2 respondent to conduct a proper investigation in Crime No. 1122/11 of Parassala police station or any other agency independent agency appointed by this Honourable court. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3 respondent to report the present stage of investigation in Crime No. 1122/11 of Parassala Police Station. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit P3 representation within time limit framed by this Hon'ble court.” The petitioner is the mother of the defacto complainant who was subjected to rape. The main grievance of the petitioner is that there is no serious investigation and that the accused is not so far arrested though the crime was committed on 17.10.2011.
2. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instruction, would submit that the accused could not be arrested earlier as he was absconding W.P.(C) 33372/2011 2 and yesterday, he was apprehended and there is absolutely no necessity to have another investigation team.
Operative part
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the event the accused could be apprehended as submitted by the Government Pleader, propriety of the investigation need not be doubted at this stage and this petition can be disposed of. In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to speed up the investigation and file the Final Report at the earliest. knc/- P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the second
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.