IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4270 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/09/2008 IN CRMP 1396/08 IN SC.259/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ N.K.ASOKAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 47, LAKSHMI BHAVANAM, MUDIYOORKONAM P.O., PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRI.PIUS K NEDUMGATTU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASST.SUPDT. OF POLICE/DEPUTY SUPDT. OF POLICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4270 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The alleged victim is CW1. Her husband is CW2. According to the petitioner, CW2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste; whereas CW1 his spouse is a woman belonging to the Nair community. According to the petitioner, no materials whatsoever have been produced to show that the alleged victim/CW1 belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. So the crux of the contention is that CW1 does not belong to any S.C/S.T. This aspect has not been subjected to pointed and rivetted investigation by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner had come to this Court earlier to direct re- investigation. Later the petitioner filed an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. That petition was dismissed by Annexure-3 order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The petitioner now prays that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the impugned order Annexure-3 and to direct further investigation. Crl.M.C. No.4270 of 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing to show that CW1 is a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel fairly submits that charges have already been framed and claim for discharge was not canvassed. It is further conceded that though the charges have already been framed, the same has not been challenged. It is also further conceded that the matter has been listed for trial to 01.12.08. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that a direction for further investigation at the instance of the accused need not be issued at this stage and the petitioner must be directed to take part in the trial which is about to commence. He can raise all contentions before the learned Sessions Judge in the course of trial. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I make it clear that dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all relevant and appropriate contentions before the learned Sessions Judge in the trial which is about to commence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.4270 of 2008 3