IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3351 of 2008() ------------------------- (AGAINST THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.555/2000 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER: ACCUSED -------------------------- SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.PANAMBALAM CHETTIAR, KOCHU VEEDU, POINTMUKKU, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LEKHA RANI, D/O.MANI, LEKHA NIVAS, PARAKKODU MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3351 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner, the husband of the defacto complainant along with some others, faces allegations now for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498 A IPC. He has come to this Court now to challenge cognizance taken for the offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act against him by the learned Magistrate. 2. There is a long story behind this case. The petitioner is admittedly the husband of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences, inter alia, under Section 498 A IPC against the petitioner herein and his relatives. That complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A crime was registered. Investigation was conducted and final report was filed. Cognizance was taken and the case was registered as CC No.62/01. In that case, significantly, cognizance was taken only of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498 A read with Section 34 IPC. It is submitted that some of the accused had come to this Crl.M.C. No. 3351 OF 2008 -:2:- Court for quashing of proceedings. Such attempts were unsuccessful. The matter went back to the Magistrate to continue the proceedings. At that stage when the 2nd respondent received summons to appear in court to give evidence, she came to know that her allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act had not been adverted to or considered by the investigating officers. She therefore filed CMP No.1216/07 complaining about failure of justice and seeking directions under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C to conduct a further investigation. The learned Magistrate by order dated 09.04.07, directed the conduct of such further investigation. It is thereupon that the further investigation was undertaken and further final report under Section 173(8) dated 09.11.07(Annexure A4) was filed before the learned Magistrate. It is on such further report that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act also in addition to the cognizance already taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498 A read with Section 34 IPC. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C. No. 3351 OF 2008 -:3:- petitioner submits that the directions for further investigation at the instance of the complainant is unjustified. The said contention cannot obviously be accepted now. It is trite after the decision in Shaji V. State of Kerala [2003(2) KLT 929] that the court can direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C even when the requirement is pointed out by the victim/complainant. Preposition (v) in paragraph 20 of Shaji(supra)settles that controversy beyond any pale of doubt. 4. I am in these circumstances satisfied that the grievance raised by the petitioner is not justified. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the observations in this order will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner and co- accused to raise appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate in their attempt to claim discharge initially or acquittal latter. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3351 OF 2008 -:4:- Crl.M.C. No. 3351 OF 2008 -:5:- Crl.M.C. No. 3351 OF 2008 -:6:-