IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 743 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34353/2007 Dated 21/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.K.G.PANICKER, S/O.KOCHUPILLA PANICKER, AGED 59 YEARS, MITTUKOTTAGE, AKAMKUDIMURI, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 & 7 IN THE WRIT PETITION: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. N.VENU KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHTALEKSHMI, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O,HAIRPAD,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 2. M.VENU, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, NANGIARKULANGARA MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,HIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DGP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-688 001. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 8. M.SURESH, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, EERICKAL KALEEYICKAL,PALLIPAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * R.P. No. 743 of 2010 in W.P. ( C) No. 34353 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 28th September, 2010 ORDER The petitioner who was the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition seeks a review of the revised judgment dated 21-7- 2010. 2. The above Writ Petition was initially disposed of by this Court on 23-1-2008 without hearing the petitioner herein who was the 6th respondent, since he had remained ex parte without having filed a counter. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench as W.A. No. 1540 of 2009. As per judgment dated 20-11-2009 the Division Bench set aside the judgment dated 23-1-2008 of this Court and directed fresh disposal of the Writ Petition after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to all parties concerned R.P. No. 743 of 2010 in W.P. ( C) No. 34353 of 2007 -:2:- including the petitioner. After the remit, eventhough this Court posted the case for filing the counter affidavit of the review petitioner, no counter affidavit was filed in spite of sufficient opportunities have been given. Therefore, this Court was constrained to dispose of the Writ Petition without having had the advantage of a counter affidavit by the petitioner herein (R6 in the Writ Petition). Accordingly, on 21-7-2010 this Court once again disposed of the Writ Petition entrusting further investigation with a sufficiently senior and responsible officer of the Crime Branch Police, preferably located outside Alappuzha District to conduct further investigation. 2. The petitioner has now preferred the present Review Petition to review the judgment dated 21-7-2010. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the Review R.P. No. 743 of 2010 in W.P. ( C) No. 34353 of 2007 -:3:- Petition:- The Writ Petition was filed on 20-11-2007 on which day the final report in Crime No. 81 of 2006 was also filed before the Magistrate concerned. The final report in Crime No. 348 of 2005 of Mavelikkara Police Station was filed before the Magistrate one week prior to that namely on 13-11-2007. The Writ Petition was proceeding on the footing that the final report was not filed before the Court. The petitioner did not amend the Writ Petition inspite of the Public Prosecutor informing the Court that the final reports were filed on 13-11- 2007 and 20-11-2007 respectively. Subsequently, during the pendency of the Writ Petition Sec. 193 I.P.C. was incorporated in one of the crimes and Sec. 196 I.P.C. was incorporated in the other crime necessitating a complaint by the Court concerned by virtue of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. The cognizance of those two offences could be taken only on a complaint filed by the Court and not on a charge-sheet by the police. The R.P. No. 743 of 2010 in W.P. ( C) No. 34353 of 2007 -:4:- petitioner had filed Crl.M.C. Nos.3835 of 2007 and 3838 of 2007 before this Court challenging the cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 193 and 196 I.P.C. and had obtained a stay of further proceedings in the matter on 24- 12-2007. It was without noticing these developments that this Court allowed the Writ Petition. 5. I am afraid that I find myself unable to agree with the above submissions. It is true on 20-11-2007 when the Writ Petition was filed , the final report in Crime No. 348 of 2005 had already been filed and a week ago and final report in Crime No. 81 of 2005 was filed on 20-11-2007. But it should be remembered that the final reports were filed before the Magistrate concerned by the Investigating Officer and and the Writ Petitioner need not necessarily know about the filing of the final report. That is presumably why the Writ Petition proceeded on the footing that the two crimes were still under investigation. But consequent on the Public Prosecutor informing this Court about R.P. No. 743 of 2010 in W.P. ( C) No. 34353 of 2007 -:5:- the filing of the final reports, this Court in the first judgment dated 23-01-2008 had specifically taken note of the said fact and that was why the Writ Petition was disposed of ordering further investigation evidently under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. It is now well settled that the filing of the final report or even the taking cognizance on the final report or even the commencement of the trial is no bar to the Court ordering further investigation. (See Prabhavathi Amma v. State of Kerala – ILR 2007 (1) Kerala 201 and Murukesan v. State of Kerala – 2010 (2) KLT 839). Therefore, the above objection cannot be sustained nor can it be put forward as a bar ordering further investigation. 6. Equally misconceived is the contention based on the incorporation of Sec. 193 and 196 I.P.C. The bar under Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. will operate only if a document, while in the custody of the Court is tampered with or fabricated in which case those offences could be taken cognizance of only on a complaint by R.P. No. 743 of 2010 in W.P. ( C) No. 34353 of 2007 -:6:- the Court concerned. But here, admittedly the case of the Prosecution is that forged documents were produced before Court. In such a case, the bar under Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. will not apply. See Iqbal Singh Marwaha v. Meenakshi Marwaha– (2005) 4 SCC 370. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the review petitioner. This Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Dated this the 28th September, 2010. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ P.S. to Judge ani.