IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17280 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BIJU KURIAKOSE, S/O.O.C.KURIAKOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, UMMANCHERIL HOUSE, KURICHY P.O. CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 5. S.I. OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.17280 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the de facto complainant/victim in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 326 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. According to the petitioner, a proper investigation has not been conducted. The petitioner approached this court and by Ext.P2 order in W.P.C.No.5290/2007 it was directed that a further investigation must be conducted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Further investigation has been conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Further final report has already been filed before the learned Magistrate. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such further investigation has not been conducted properly. I shall, for the sake of arguments assume that the grievance of the petitioner is correct; but the petitioner has a remedy under law to approach the learned Magistrate to raise objections against the final report. The position is made very clear now with the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others [2008 AIR SCW 309]. The learned W.P.C.No.17280/08 2 counsel for the petitioner submits that since Ext.P2 order is passed by this court and in these circumstances the learned Magistrate may not consider the application on merits. 2. I find no merit in that apprehension also. Since further investigation is directed in Ext.P2 order all incidents of further investigation will necessarily follow. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the further investigation and with the further final report that has been filed, the petitioner's option to approach the learned Magistrate and raise his objections shall remain. The learned Magistrate must consider such objections and issue appropriate directions if he is satisfied with the need to issue such directions. 3. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.17280/08 3 W.P.C.No.17280/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007