High CourtsSingle Bench

Toshma Biju Varghese vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 September 2024 · Citation: (2024) 09 KL CK 0065

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. Badharudeen, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 896 Of 2024
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

10 paragraphs · 352 words

A. Badharudeen, J

1.

This writ petition (criminal) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking the following prayers:

i) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ or order may be issued directing the 4 respondent to take over the case and conduct re- investigation of the FIR.No. 642/2024 dated 16.05.2024 of Kottayam East Police Station and file Final Report before the court of competent Jurisdiction, or alternatively; AND

i) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ or order may be issued directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of the Exhibit-P8 representation to take over the case and conduct re-investigation of the FIR.No. 642/2024 dated 16.05.2024 of Kottayam East Police Station; AND

iii) To dispense with filing of the translation vernacular documents; AND

iv) Grant such other reliefs, including the relief of dirccting the 1st respondent to provide all support and facility to the 4th respondent or, as the case may, for facilitating proper and effective re-investigation of the FIR.no.642/2024 dated 16.05.2024 of Kottayam East Police Station.

2.

Heard both sides, in detail. Perused the relevant records.

3.

The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no proper investigation in FIR No. 642/2024 dated 16.05.2024 of Kottayam East Police Station. Therefore, the investigation is to be entrusted to a higher official preferably, the 4th respondent, Cyber Police Station, Kottayam.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor even though produced report of investigation suggesting that no flaw in the investigation, did not oppose the relief sought for by the petitioner.

Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the victim’s statement was recorded after a delay of 55 days and the learned Public Prosecutor also did not raise any objection regarding entrustment of investigation of this crime by the 4th respondent, this writ petition stands allowed and thereby the 2nd respondent is directed to entrust the investigation of FIR.No. 642/2024 dated 16.05.2024 of Kottayam East Police Station to the 4th respondent, for effectively conducting the investigation, as per law and file report, without fail.