SUDARSANAN VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, de facto complainant in Crime No.549 of 2010 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram seeks a direction to the investigating agency to hand over investigation to the CBCID, without further delay and that the investigation may be monitored by this Court. PETITIONER preferred a private complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram which was forwarded to the Fort police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police registered Crime No.549 of 2010 for offences punishable under Secs.323, 364A, 384, 386, 387 and 506(ii) r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case of petitioner is that on the day of incident, one Sajan and Sherin approached him claiming to be brokers and offering to sell his Benz car. They invited petitioner to the house of Sajan. They were accompanied by the driver of Sajan, one Kuttan (who is not arrayed as accused in the FIR) as well. Under the impression that petitioner is in possession of more than Rupees One Crore which he obtained by sale of his property the said Sajan and Sherin allegedly with the assistance of Kuttan confined petitioner in a room in the house of said Sajan and demanded ransom of `.25,00,000/-. Learning that petitioner is not in possession of any money, the culprits wanted custody of the vehicle and the vehicular documents and sent a person to the house of petitioner to collect the vehicular documents. PETITIONER was compelled to telephone to his wife to hand over vehicular documents to the person who went there. Accordingly the vehicular documents were handed over to that person. It is also the case that petitioner was severely assaulted by Sajan, Sherin and others. PETITIONER states that apart from registering the case nothing was done by the investigating officer and no effort was made to trace the vehicle. In the meantime, vehicle was taken into custody by the Attingal police but in spite of being informed of that, the investigating officer did not take steps to get the vehicle in custody. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Ext.P9, letter issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal to the petitioner under the Right of Information Act where it is stated that seizure of the vehicle in question was intimated to the Fort police through wireless but, information received from the Fort police was that the said vehicle was not involved in Crime No.549 of 2010. In the circumstances, learned counsel requested that investigation may be handed over to CBCID. Learned counsel submits that even the wound certificate has not so far been collected by the investigating officer. The culprits made use of the ATM card of petitioner, collected money from the ATM counter but no attempt was made to check the video tape kept in the ATM counter to ascertain who had collected money from the account of petitioner. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is continuing.

(2.) IN the statement filed by 4th respondent, the Sub INspector, Fort Police Station it is stated about the investigation he has conducted so far. He states that he made a search in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 but, nothing could be recovered or collected. It is also stated in paragraph 9 that as part of investigation the Sub INspector had deputed the A.S.I to serve notice on petitioner to produce relevant records and RC particulars of the said vehicle, but in the given address at Pathanamthitta one Haridasan is residing for the last three years. For obtaining RC and vehicular documents a letter was sent to the RTO, Attingal. On 21.08.2010 the vehicle was seized by the Attingal police and was released to one Jalal Nasar on 25.08.2010. Details from the Syndicate Bank and ICICI are to be obtained and investigation is going on the proper way, it is stated.