The petitioner, K.K. Sidharthan — proprietor of Hotel Sidhartha Regency, Thrissur, and at the relevant time residing in Dubai — filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to transfer investigation of Crime Nos. 666/2007, 667/2007, and 668/2007 registered at Town East Police Station, Thrissur, to a Senior Police Officer on the ground that the existing investigation was not being conducted properly. The wife of the petitioner, Sindhu Sidharthan, was subsequently impleaded as the sixth respondent.\n\nBy the time the matter came up for final hearing, the factual substratum had materially changed. Counsel for the sixth respondent pointed out that final reports had already been submitted in Crime Nos. 666/2007 and 667/2007, and that the accused had separately approached the High Court to quash cognizance taken on one of those reports. Both sides further informed the Court that the underlying matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the sixth respondent were in the process of being settled, and the petitioner's counsel sought disposal of the petition in light of these developments.\n\nThe Court disposed of the writ petition, declining to transfer investigation of the remaining third crime (Crime No. 668/2007) to another officer. The Court noted that final reports had already been filed in two of the three cases, making the primary relief largely infructuous, and found no justification to transfer investigation of the third case. It clarified that the petitioner retains the liberty to challenge any final report filed in the third case if he so chooses, and that the filing of a final report would not operate as an impediment to any settlement between the parties.
K.K.Sidharthan v. State of Kerala
Single judge · Justice M. Sasidharan Nambiar
Why it matters
ListenAdvocates handling writ petitions for transfer of police investigation should note that submission of a final report in the subject crime will ordinarily render such relief infructuous; the residual remedy is to challenge the final report before the competent court, not to persist in the writ. The judgment also confirms that a pending final report is no bar to a private settlement between parties.
Summary
Key principle
Where final reports have already been submitted in the crimes whose investigation is sought to be transferred, a writ petition for transfer of investigation becomes largely infructuous; the Court will not direct transfer of investigation in the remaining case merely because related crimes were investigated by the same officer, especially when the parties are settling their disputes.
Holding
Disposed of — the writ petition seeking transfer of investigation of three crimes was rendered substantially infructuous by submission of final reports in two of them, and no case was made out to transfer investigation of the third crime to a senior officer.
Statutes invoked
- Constitution · Article 226