LAWS(MAD)-1992-2-39

Y KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE

Decided On February 24, 1992
Y.KRISHNAPPA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition unfurls a tale of woe of a person shown as an accused in a crime, not being able to get through the process of trial for over six years, in spite of his having approached this Court thrice, inclusive of this petition, due to the lack of promptitude or even routine action by the investigating police, notwithstanding the fact that the law enforcing agency had been sphereheaded by two orders of this Court, reminding them of their duty to society, and the procedural mandate, they were bound to necessarily follow.

(2.) Now the facts :- Petitioner Krishnappa is Accused No. 11 in Crime No. 156 of 1986, registered at Keelamangalam Police Station on 30-12-1986, on a first information report preferred by Ramesh, in respect of an occurrence, that had taken place at about 7 a.m. on the same day at Thotta Perur village. The crime was registered under Sections 147, 148, and 307, IPC. There appears to be two factions in the village. Due to factional dispute, two occurrences had taken place on the morning of 30-12-1986 leading to registration of Crime Nos. 155 of 1986 and 156 of 1986. In Crime No. 155 of 1986, the gravest offence of registration, was murder. After investigation, a final report was filed in the said Crime No. 22-12-1987 by P. K. Balasubramanian, the then Inspector of Police, Keelamangalam Police Station. He was in charge of investigation in Crime No. 156/86 as well. But for reasons best known to him, he did not choose to complete investigation and forward a report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. to the concerned Magistrate. We are now concerned in this petition with crime No. 156 of 1986, in which the overtact attributed to the petitioner is, that he beat the first informant with a stick along with others and kicked him as well.

(3.) The petitioner at the time of occurrence was working as a Teacher in a Primary School at P. Chettipalli village. On becoming aware, of the involvement of the petitioner, in this crime. The District Educational Officer, by an order dated 14-3-1987, placed the petitioner on interim suspension, with retrospective effect from 31-12-1986, the date of his production for remand, before the committal Magistrate. This order of suspension, is stated to be in force, till this day. The petitioner, after patiently waiting for about two years, with a fond hope, that investigation would be completed and a charge-sheet laid before the Court, to facilitate his getting exonerated, being disappointed, chose to approach this Court, by preferring Crl. M.P. No. 7816 of 1988, invoking the inherent powers, pleading for directions to the respondents/police, to file a final report. Bashkaran, J. noting about the suspension of the petitioner, coupled with the inaction of the respondent/police, on the basis of the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, that directions may be given to the respondent to file a final report, since the respondent had not chosen to turn up in spite of two messages, ordered as follows :-