High CourtsSingle Bench

E.P.SIYAD vs M.P.DINESH & ANR

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 KL CK 0086

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
CASE NUMBER
1347 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 302 words
1.

This petition is filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents in W.P.(C) No.34605 of 2016.

2.

The prayer in the writ petition was to direct the 2nd respondent to remove the 3rd respondent from the charge of investigation of Crime No.

1506 of 2016 of the Kalamassery Police Station and to hand over investigation of the said case to any senior officer not below the rank of Deputy

Superintendent of Police.

3.

This Court, after rejecting the main prayer, had disposed of the Writ Petition directing the second respondent to issue necessary directions to the

Inspector of Police having jurisdiction to monitor and supervise the investigation being conducted by the third respondent. It was further directed

that on completion of investigation, the report should be placed before the officer not below the rank of the Dy.S.P. having jurisdiction over the

matter and the said officer was directed to approve the final report prior to its submission before court. The grievance of the petitioner is that those

directions were wilfully disobeyed by the respondents.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a statement, wherein it is stated that the investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police as

directed and the same was monitored by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery. The petitioner was summoned and his statements were

recorded. No evidence was found justifying the allegations in the complaint and consequently, the case was referred as false. The final report has

been submitted before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakara for approval.

5.

I am of the view that the directions in the judgment has been substantially complied with. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to initiate

any action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Contempt Case is closed.