AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramkumar, J.—Petitioner who has been served with Ext.P1 notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. by the 3rd respondent Detecting Inspector, CB CID, CWII, Ernakulam in connection with Crime No, 72/CR/SII/04 seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent not to summon the petitioner any more for the aforesaid Crime as part of the investigation or in the alternative to allow the petitioner to be interrogated in the presence of a lawyer of his choice in case he is interrogated in connection with the above crime and a direction to respondents 2 and 3 Director General of Police and the Detective Inspector CB-CID, CW-II, Ernakulam not to summon the petitioner in connection with the above crime unless and until new facts or materials have come to light .
According to the petitioner, he has not been so far made an accused in the above Crime and it is on the basis of sheer suspicion that he was being interrogated by the Investigating Officers and some of them had even manhandled him.
The 3rd respondent has filed a statement stating inter alia as follows:
Under the CBCID,OCW-II, Ernakulam Wing, 29 grave nature cases are under investigation including crimes such as decoity, robbery, house-breaking and theft in which cases involving theft of jewellery shops, kilograms of gold and lakhs of rupees were stolen by unknown accused without leaving any evidence. It is very difficult to detect the culprits in all these cases since the investigation in those cases is not confined to any District in Kerala only but the offences are also having ramifications in the State of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and other States. In all these 29 cases, the accused persons are yet to be detected. The petitioner was involved in robbery and decoity cases while he was studying in college and got associated himself with gunda elements. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 167/2001 of Binanipuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 397 I.P.C. involving robbery of 1,92,000/-. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 329 of 2000 of Chengamanad Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 395 I.P.C. in which case the allegation against the petitioner in that he along with 5 others robbed 17.320 kgs of gold. In Crime No. 72/CR/2004 registered by CBCID CWII, Ernakulam Unit the allegation is that the six accused persons therein blocked the complainant Binil and his father and his brother while they were carrying 2.330 Kgs of gold worth 12.6 lakhs from Kizhakkambalam Town to their house and they were robbed of the jewels and assaulted and a country bomb was also exploded and the six assailants had decamped with the booty in two motor cycles. In Crime No. 329/CR/06 the accused persons had made a manhole in the rear wall of the jewellery shop of Mathew John the owner of Kachappally Jewellery and committed theft of 1934.9 grams of gold ornaments and 25 wrist watches altogether valued at Rs. 11,28,379/-. The culprits in the above case had not left behind any trace of evidence. For the investigation of the above two cases, the antecedents of the Criminals, suspects, bad characters and ex-convicts has to be verified. It was a part of the investigation that the petitioner and others were summoned to the Crime Branch Office at Ernakulam and their statements are recorded. This was part of the routine process to find out whether the petitioner is involved in any of the above cases. The questioning of the petitioner is also necessary for detecting the real culprits in the above cases.
The petitioner cannot take exception to any of the investigating officers summoning the petitioners u/s 160 Cr.P.C. as a person who is believed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The Investigating Agency has not so far arrayed the petitioner as an accused in the above said case evidently for want of incriminating materials in support of the same. But the petitioner cannot keep the police at bay by seeking a direction as has been prayed for in this case. The question as to whether the petitioner has been manhandled is a matter to be considered by the appropriate Magistrate as and when a complaint is lodged in that behalf. Even if the petitioner has been acquitted in some other crimes registered against him that is not a reason for claiming immunity from interrogation as a suspect. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is manhandled or subjected to corporal torture he can certainly move the Magistrate concerned and thereby set the criminal law in motion. But the petitioner cannot claim a total immunity from interrogation by the police, I am sure that the 3rd respondent or any police officer under the 2nd and 3rd respondents will not subject the petitioner to corporal torture under the guise of investigation or interrogation. Clarifying this position, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
In case the petitioner is again required to be interrogated in connection with the aforesaid crime, the 3rd respondent shall give fresh notice to the petitioner u/s 160 Cr.P.C. since the date and time fixed under Ext.P1 notice have already expired.
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010.