IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9199 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.375/2010 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION) ..... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SABUKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KIZHAKKOOT HOUSE, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURIKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PIN - 680 001. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9199 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.375 of 2010 of Thrissur Police Station. Petitioner preferred Ext.P1, complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur alleging that he is the victim of the cheating by Internet money transaction. Petitioner alleged that the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate forwarded the case to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Third respondent, Sub Inspector registered the case and started investigation. Grievance of petitioner is that there is no proper investigation. He preferred Ext.P3, complaint to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Thrissur. Hence it is prayed that investigation may be handed over to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and in the alternative, a direction may be issued to the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner did not produce any document to show that he had deposited money with the accused. WP(C) No.9199/2011 2 No evidence could be collected regarding deposit of money. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that final report is filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referring the case as a mistake of fact. 3. If any such final report is filed, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has to given notice of the same to the petitioner and on receipt of such notice it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as provided under law. With the above observation, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks