IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 354 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/01/2009 IN MP 7365/2008 IN CC.706/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. DIXON CREDO SOONER, S/O.SOONER, CHUDUKATTUNKAL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPE KARA (S), PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. 2. C.P.SOONER, S/O.PADMANABHAN, CHUDUKATTUNKAL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPE KARA (S), PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. 3. SATHI SOONER, W/O.SOONER, CHUDUKATTUNKAL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPE KARA (S), PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. 4. SOPHIA SOONER, D/O.SOONER, CHUDUKATTUNKAL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPE KARA (S), PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.MOHAMMED YOUSUFF, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SMT.T.V.SREEJA SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOCHI. CRP.R.P.NO.354/2009 2 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL. 4. JITHU MOHAN, S/O.MOHANA PANICKER, PADIYATH VEEDU, EDANADU KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS FOR R4 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.354 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioners, respondent No.4 and the Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Petitioners who are accused in C.C.No.706 of 2007 challenge the order for further investigation passed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of respondent No.4. Petitioners were facing trial for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the witnesses for the prosecution was examined. At that stage, respondent No.4 filed a petition for further investigation stating that some more documents are to be collected and that the investigation is not proper. Assistant Public Prosecutor did not oppose the petition. Thereon learned magistrate passed the impugned order directing further investigation. 2. In this proceeding, I am not going into the question whether petitioners could challenge the order for further investigation. If there is an illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order or proceeding, petitioners can bring that, to the notice of this Court. It is seen that in the petition filed by respondent No.4, it is not stated what exactly are the documents required to be collected or, how the investigation was improper. The order of learned magistrate also did not disclose these facts. As such, I am unable to sustain the Crl.R.P.No.354/2009 2 order under challenge. It is made clear that it will be open to respondent No.4 to supplement matters on which the further investigation is required. If so done, learned magistrate would consider that and pass appropriate order. With the above direction, this petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. Crl.M.A.No.1039 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks