Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1492 (KER)

Aseeb T. A. S/o K. B. Ashraf v. Vaibhav Saxena

2025-05-28

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, P.B.SURESH KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner who is the appellant in W.A. No. 122 of 2024 alleges wilful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in the said case to the respondent to supervise the investigation in Crime No. 525 of 2023 of Nedumbassery Airport Police Station. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (Crl) No. 1052 of 2023 seeking directions to hand over the investigation in the crime to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The allegation in the crime is that the accused viz, Saranya had obtained employment at the Cochin International Airport Limited on the basis of a fake certificate. 4. The learned Single Judge took the view that in the absence of any reason to doubt the competence or credibility of the investigation, which was being carried on in the case by the local police, a change of investigation is not warranted. The writ petition, in the circumstances, was disposed of directing that if the petitioner has any grievance against the investigation, it is open to him to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate, as observed in the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 . Writ Appeal No.122 of 2024 was preferred by the petitioner challenging the said decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal at the admission stage itself directing the District Police Chief, Ernakulam to supervise the investigation and see that appropriate report is submitted in the case at the earliest. As noted, the case of the petitioner is that there is contumacious inaction on the part of the respondent in complying with the direction issued by this Court. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Paragraphs 6 and 7 in the statement read thus: “6) It is respectfully submitted that as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by judgment dated 31.01.2024 in W.A. No. 122 of 2024, the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural District (respondent herein) has supervised the investigation of the case and reviewed the progress of the investigation of Crime No. 525/2023 of Nedumbassery Airport Police Station periodically with the investigating officer and gave instructions for the fair investigation and finalization of the case at the earliest. The District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural District (respondent herein) has given written instructions on 11.03.2024, 10.05.2024 and 13.06.2024 for the fair investigation of the case and instructed to submit the final report of the case at the earliest. 7) It is respectfully submitted that the Factual Report dated 04.04.2024 in Crime No. 525/2023 of Nedumbassery Airport Police Station was submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aluva seeking sanction to finalize the case as “Mistake of Fact” and to submit the final report before the court. The Factual report was returned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aluva with directions to complete the investigation. After the compliance of the directions of the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aluva, the Final report dated 05.02.2025 in Crime No. 525/2023 of Nedumbassery Airport Police Station was submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aluva. The Final Report dated 05.02.2025 was forwarded to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ankamaly by the Dy SP, Aluva with the recommendation to finalize the case as a “Mistake of Fact”. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement does not disclose that the respondent has supervised the investigation in the case. According to the learned counsel, had there been any communication at all between the respondent and the officer conducting the investigation, nothing prevented the respondent from producing the same before this Court. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the statement refers to two final reports in the same crime which is unheard of. 7. The question is whether there is any wilful neglect or laches on the part of the respondent in complying with the direction issued by this Court. Having regard to the nature of the case, we have no doubt in our minds that what was intended by the direction sought to be enforced is to ensure that the investigation in the case shall be concluded only with the concurrence of the officers superior to the Investigating Officer as well. Having regard to the nature of the case, we have no doubt in our minds that what was intended by the direction sought to be enforced is to ensure that the investigation in the case shall be concluded only with the concurrence of the officers superior to the Investigating Officer as well. The statement filed in the matter as referred to above shows that before arriving at the final conclusion in the matter, the Investigating Officer has forwarded to the officer superior to him namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aluva a factual report, seeking sanction to finalise the case as “Mistake of Fact” and the Deputy Superintendent of Police returned the said report with a direction to complete the investigation, and the final report in the case has been filed thereafter, after complying with the directions issued by the District Police Chief as referred to in paragraph 6 of the statement, as also the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 8. We do not find any reason to suspect the bonafides of the averments made in the statement filed in the matter. Having regard to the nature of allegations raised by the petitioner against the accused in the case and also the fact that the brother of the petitioner had faced departmental proceedings for raising allegations against the accused in the crime, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to examine the nature of the directions issued by the District Police Chief to the Investigating Officer in the case. It is all the more so since the petitioner has effective alternative remedies for redressal of his grievance against the final report in the case. 9. The Contempt Case, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to the remedies available to him under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for redressal of the grievance against the final report filed in the case.