High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh Palamattam vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 KL CK 0101

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 15775 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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

20 paragraphs · 339 words

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J

1.

This writ petition is filed by the first accused in the case registered as V.C.No.19/2016 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-

Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam, seeking the following reliefs:

“i). issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to complete the investigation of Exhibit P1 Crime

No.19/2016 registered by VACB, Ernakulam as expeditiously as possible and submit final report before court in accordance with law within a time frame;

ii). issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider and dispose Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as

possible;

iii). issue other writ or direction which this Honourable court may deem fit on the facts of the case.â€​

2.

When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer has filed a statement with

regard to the present stage of the investigation of the case.

3.

In the statement dated 11.08.2021 filed by the investigating officer before this Court, it is mentioned as follows:

“It is most humbly submitted that the investigation into the registered crime case in light of the complaint has been completed and the factual report was duly

submitted to the higher ups on 30/12/2020 for approval. Upon obtaining approval from VACB Directorate, the final report shall be laid before the Honourable

Court.â€​

4.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has submitted that the conclusion reached by the investigating officer on conducting investigation is that

further action in the matter has to be dropped.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above facts may be recorded and the writ petition may be closed.

6.

The statement filed by the investigating officer and the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor are recorded. In view of the submission

made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, nothing further survives for consideration in this writ petition.

7.

The writ petition stands disposed of as above.