IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4219 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.178/2009 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ................... PETITIONER/FIFTEENTH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- BINU LAL.T, S/O.THANKAPPAN, T.C.22/210, KATTACKAL VEEDU, ATTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(LAW & ORDER) POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 502. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 023 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 513. R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the fifteenth accused, in Crime No. 178/2009 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A6 final report and for a direction to the first respondent to file a report on further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, based on Annexure-A7 representation submitted by him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in Annexure-A6 final report, prosecution case is that out of the stolen gold ornaments, a part was entrusted to the fourth accused, who, in turn, entrusted it to the petitioner and the mahazar prepared while effecting recovery of those articles reveals that petitioner CRMC 4219/10 2 was unaware of the fact that they are stolen articles and in such circumstances, an offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that based on Annexure-A7 representation, first respondent directed further investigation and a report has already been submitted before the court seeking permission to investigate the case under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure and now, the case is being investigated by Deputy superintendent of Police. 5. In such circumstances, I do not find it necessary to quash the final report as the aspects raised by the petitioner are matters, to be looked into at the time of investigation. Petitioner is entitled to challenge the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is dismissed. 10th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv