MATTUMAL MOHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 complaint filed by him about the commission of a cognizable offence on 15.10.2006, though received by the police, no action is being taken by the police on such complaint. This, it is alleged, is because of the influence exerted by the rivals of the petitioner.

(2.) Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor after taking instructions has filed a statement. It is admitted that Ext.P1 complaint about the incident which occurred on 15.10.06 has been received by the police.

(3.) Why then has no F.I.R. been registered? There is no contention that Ext.P1 does not reveal the commission of a cognizable offence. On receipt of such a complaint the respondent police is certainly bound to proceed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure by registering a crime. The decision in K.Moideenkutty Haji v. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 835) of the Division Bench of this Court adverting to precedents has made the position very clear. I do not, in these circumstances, find any justification for the inaction of the police, who had admittedly received Ext.P1.