AMBADI CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition was filed by the father of a victim, namely, Hemaja, who was found dead with her neck cut in a Maruthi Omni Van on 05.09.2009. A crime was registered over the death of the victim for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code in which her husband was arrayed as the first accused with another.

(2.) VARIOUS efforts made by the investigating agencies to arrest the first accused were of no avail, and the completion of investigation is thereby delayed. Father of the victim had previously approached this court for issuing directions/orders and also for entrusting the investigation of the case to another agency for speedy completion of the investigation of the crime. Ext.P2 judgment rendered in that case after looking into the report then filed by the investigating agency. Noting the steps taken till then which indicated there was no latches in the conducting of investigation, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Magistrate to seek appropriate directions for monitoring the investigation of the crime in case he still entertained any further grievance over the matter the petition was disposed. Frequent transfer of the Circle Inspectors of Police at the station concerned who were put in charge of the investigation of the crime, one after the other on transfer, according to the counsel had delayed effective steps being taken in apprehending the first accused. The counsel pressed for handing over the investigation of the crime to the third respondent, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

(3.) THE first accused has some properties in Kannur and to prevent its alienation and also to compel the appearance of that accused, steps have been taken under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to declare him as a proclaimed offender and for attaching his properties. THE report filed by the investigating officer prima facie satisfies that every step that could be validly expected for a fair investigation is being taken in the matter but its completion is delayed for the reason that the main suspected culprit, the first accused, the husband of the victim, could not be apprehended so far. THE learned Magistrate who had been approached by the petitioner had passed Ext.P4 order directing the investigating officer to take every step to trace out A1, and to enable it to do so fresh warrant had also been issued against that accused. A Superior Police Officer should be directed to monitor the investigation of the crime to see that there is no latches on the part of the investigating officer in taking prompt steps in time to arrest the accused A1, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am satisfied that the investigating officer is taking all steps necessary. But I do find some merit in the submission that frequent transfers of the investigating officers posted is detrimental in taking timely steps for arrest of A1. THEre will be a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Kannur, to have periodical check up of the investigation conducted in the case and be satisfied that necessary steps as required are being taken from time to time to apprehend the first accused. At this stage there is no need to hand over the investigation of the crime to the third respondent as it appears that the investigation by the present agency is free from any blame. Subject to the directions as aforesaid, the writ petition is closed.