Naveen Babu's death: Plea for further probe, case transferred to Sessions court for trial
Mail This Article
Kannur: The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur, on Friday transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thalassery, the petition filed by K Manjusha, wife of former ADM Naveen Babu, seeking a further probe into his death. The case itself has also been moved, and the trial will now be conducted in the Sessions Court.
According to her counsel, the Magistrate Court cannot consider the matter under the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Sessions Court will now take it up.
Manjusha moved the petition on August 5 under Section 175 of the BNSS, alleging that the police investigation suppressed crucial documents and witness accounts. She argued that only a further probe could uncover the lapses surrounding her husband’s death.
Naveen Babu was found hanging in his official quarters on October 15, 2024, a day after former Kannur District Panchayat President P P Divya allegedly made incriminating remarks against him at a farewell meeting in the Collectorate. The police filed a charge sheet in March 2025, naming Divya as the sole accused, and later submitted a supplementary charge sheet in July 2025.
In her plea, Manjusha claimed that the final report was filed in haste, without retrieving Divya’s chat records. She also pointed out that investigators collected call data only from Kannur District Collector Arun K Vijayan’s phones, ignoring his official and personal numbers.
Opposing the petition, Inspector Sreejith Koderi, investigating officer of Kannur Town Police, submitted a plea at the Magistrate court and argued that all aspects of the case had already been examined and a comprehensive probe completed. He noted that both the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed petitions challenging the investigation and demanding a CBI probe.
The police further rejected allegations that some witness statements and forwarding notes were deliberately left undated to benefit the accused. “The claim that such omissions were intentional and later corrected is baseless,” the officer stated.