HARIKUMAR Vs. T.R. AJITH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the interim order dated 2.3.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 27507 of 2014. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the appellant.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 herein have filed the writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P1, the First Information Report and Ext.R4(i), the additional report filed by the police in the matter relating to an investigation which commenced at the instance of the appellant herein, who was the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The issue relates to misappropriation of copper having a weight of 1056.882kg. The investigation is admittedly in progress. The learned Single Judge by the interim order, took note of the report dated 27.10.2014, submitted by the Inspector of Police, Adoor, which indicated that there is proper accounting in the minutes regarding the major quantity of copper, but accounts are not seen regarding 1797kgs of copper sheets and that by itself will not attract prosecution. Further it was observed in the report that there were minutes of the general body and the executive committee regarding the issue. Hence, the learned Single Judge observed that the investigating authority will have to verify the minutes and the bye -law of the committee to find out whether any decision has been taken in the general body meeting or in the executive committee meeting regarding 1797kgs of copper sheets. If any such authorisation is available, the allegation of cheating or misappropriation will not have any significance. Hence, it was directed that the investigating officer will meticulously verify the whole minutes and connected papers and also the bye -law of the committee in detail to find out whether there is any unauthorised appropriation constituting misappropriation. A direction was issued to submit a proper and satisfactory report within one month.

(3.) THE main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the legality of the writ court directing investigation in a particular manner. It is submitted that the investigation of a crime is purely within the realm of jurisdiction of the investigating officer and the direction issued by the Court amounts to interference in the investigating process. It is also argued that the investigating officer is not precluded from conducting any further investigation other than to verify the registers and find out whether proper authorisation has been given or not. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Krishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna and another [ : 2009 (7) SCC 685] and Ojha M.N. and others v. Alok Kumar Srivastav and another [ : 2009 (9) SCC 682].