K.P. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Masquerading himself as a public interest litigant, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition contending that Ext.P3 office memorandum issued by the Registrar of this Court amounts to interference with the investigation of Crime No.357/14 of Chalakudy Police Station.

(2.) Ext.P3 reveals that a request was made by the investigating officer for questioning the Judicial First Class Magistrate of Kodungalloor in connection with the aforesaid crime and that the same was reported by the District Judge, Trichur to the Registry of this Court. Thereupon Registry issued Ext.P3, the relevant portion of which reads thus;

(3.) In Ext.P3, all that is directed is that the investigating officer should be informed to comply with instructions 1, 2 and 3 while recording the statement of the Judicial First Class Magistrate mentioned above. Such protection has been ordered to be extended to judicial officers, who are accused in criminal cases, if they are to be arrested and/or a statement of a judicial officer under arrest is to be recorded. (See in this context, the Apex Court judgment in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat {(1991) 4 SCC 406}. If judicial officer, who is an accused in a criminal case, is entitled to such protections, there is nothing illegal in extending similar protection to a judicial officer whose statement is proposed to be recorded as part of investigation into a criminal case. These instructions, in our view, do not in any manner amount to an interference with the investigation or stone walling the progress of the criminal case, as is now sought to be made out by the petitioner. Further, if there was such a grievance for the petitioner, he ought to have sought a prayer for quashing Ext.P3, which also has not been done.