IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2540 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.644/2009, CMP.NO.969 OF 2009 & CMP NO.1641/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): (PETITIONER IN CMP NO.644/2009 AND CMP NO. 1641/2010/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.196/2009): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.CHALIYAN ABU, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHALIYAN HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD. 3. ULLATTIL NISAR, CIVIL SURGEON, ORTHO-CUM GENERAL PRACTIONER, MANNARKKAD TALUK HEAD QUARTERS, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, MANNARKKAD. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 2540 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 10th August, 2010 ORDER Petitioner who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.196 of 2009 of Mannarkkad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 200, 409 and 420 I.P.C. challenges Annexure -A5 order dated 8-6-2010 passed by the J.F.C.M. dismissing Annexure – IV application filed by the petitioner . The above crime itself was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. The said complaint was forwarded to the Mannarkkad Police which registered the above crime and started investigation. Subsequently the police filed a refer report before the learned Magistrate which as per Annexure – III order dated 29-09-2009 refused to accept the refer report but instead ordered further investigation under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The further investigation is still going on and a supplementary final report has not been filed so far. It was at that juncture that the petitioner filed Annexure IV application. Eventhough the said Crl.M.C. No. 2540 of 2010 -:2:- application was filed under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. his prayer was only to expedite the filing of the supplementary report. Presumably the petitioner was invoking Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – 2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC). Hence, the observation in Annexure V order to the effect that the factual narration in Annexure IV petition was contradictory and exaggerated was uncalled for. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the police will be soon filing a supplementary final report. The said submission is recorded. This Crl. M.C. is disposed of holding that the aforementioned observation in Annexure V order is unwarranted. Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010l. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ P.S. to Judge ani. Crl.M.C. No. 2540 of 2010 -:3:-