IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1314 of 2009(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.SURESH KUMAR,S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MANGALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KAITHAKUZHI, ELANCHIRA. P.O, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR SMT.THASNIM M.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION,NEYYATTINKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.1314 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner faces indictment as the 1st accused in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 452, 506(ii) and 427 r/w 34 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that the crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed before the Magistrate and referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail. 2. According to the petitioner, several allegations raised in the final report are totally false and incorrect. He therefore wants a direction to be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to conduct further investigation in the matter. 3. After the decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala [2003 (2) KLT 929], it is trite that powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C can be invoked by a Magistrate on the basis of a request from any of the contestants or suo motu. If the petitioner feels that W.P(C). No.1314 of 2009 2 there is any need for further investigation any specific aspect, it is for the petitioner to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. I am not persuaded to agree that any direction for further investigation can, need or ought to be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-