SULEKHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defacto complainant/victim and she has raised allegations under Section 452, 354 and 506(1) I.P.C in the F.I statement lodged by her. She has come to this Court with a grievance that proper investigation is not being conducted by the police and there is susceptibility on the part of the police to accept the version of the accused without proper and appropriate investigation. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner prays that the investigation may be entrusted to a more senior and competent police official.

(2.) The F.I statement is lodged on 15.11.2006 before the Superintendent of Police of the district. In the F.I statement, it is alleged that at 7.30 p.m on 13.11.2006, the accused, an influential politician of the locality had trespassed into the house of the victim and had attempted to outrage her modesty. She had applied for a housing loan. The first instalment of Rs.25,000/- had been paid. The next instalment of Rs.25,000/- remains to be paid. The accused has a say in the matter and his words would count to decide whether she would get the next instalment of the loan or not. It is the case of the complainant/petitioner that using that circumstance, the accused went to her residence and attempted to outrage her modesty. She has no case that any other person witnessed the incident. She does not have a case that she has made a hue and cry and any other person had come to her home on hearing the same. It is her case that she did not reveal that incident even to her husband on that day. It is only later that she revealed the incident to her husband and it is thereafter that the complaint was lodged before the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police referred the same to the local police and accordingly, the F.I.R was registered on 16.11.2006.

(3.) The petitioner has a case that the accused is very influential and he is a member of the local Panchayat. The party position in the Panchayat is precariously balanced and one vote can tilt the scales. The accused is very powerful and is in a position to dictate terms with the political leaders. On account of such political clout of the accused, no proper investigation is being conducted. There is a propensity to accept a convenient defence urged by the accused that he was elsewhere and could not have been present at the scene of the crime at the alleged time of occurrence. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the inadequate and improper investigation.