IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 345 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- CMP.9033/2010 OF JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- WILSON THOMAS @ WILLIAMS, NAMBIA PARAMBIL VEEDU, KALIYAR P.O., VANNAPPURAM, PIN-685607. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BABY @ DEVASSIA, S/O.POULOSE, KANIMALAYIL VEEDU, VANNAPPURAM, PIN-685607. 3. K.K.BABU, KAVUMPURATH, (LAKSHMY NIVAS) AMBALAPADY, VANNAPPURAM-685607. 4. SHAJI, AUTO DRIVER, VANNAPPURAM-685607. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.345 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.403 of 2010 of Kaliyar police station. That complaint was filed alleging that the accused in the said case committed offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 390, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by forging documents on signed blank papers obtained from the petitioner and by committing theft of a Jeep belonging to the petitioner. That complaint was forwarded to the police under the Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). The Police registered Crime No.403 of 2010. While so, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.9033 of 2010 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha under Section 93 of the Code to issue a direction to the police officer to seize the vehicle involved and produce the same in court. Learned Magistrate called for a report from the Station House Officer, Kaliyar and based on that report dismissed the application observing that it is within the realm of investigation whether the vehicle is to be seized or not and that learned Magistrate is not supposed to dictate the way in which investigation is to be CRL.M.C. No.345 of 2011 -: 2 :- conducted. Seizing of the vehicle is also found to be part of investigation. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel contended that in the light of the report given by the Station House Officer he is not pursing the challenge to Annexure-VII, order referred to above. It is requested that petitioner may be permitted to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate to issue necessary direction in the matter of investigation. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It would appear from the impugned order that the Station House Officer has given a report dated 28.12.2010 stating that petitioner had sold the vehicle to respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 30.11.2010 as per a sale agreement and that no offence is committed. But further investigation is being conducted. The Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 [1] KLT 724) has upheld the power of Magistrate under Section 157 (3) of the Code to ensure proper investigation of the case. It is held that, that power is wide and includes all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring proper investigation. It is open to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate in the light of the said decision to ensure proper investigation and call for report from the investigating CRL.M.C. No.345 of 2011 -: 3 :- officer as and when found necessary. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of without prejudice to the right of petitioner to move the learned Magistrate seeking appropriate relief in the light of the decision referred supra. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv