IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 921 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.478/2006 OF N. PARAVUR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- SIBI ANTONY, ALIAS OUSEPH, S/O.ANTONY, ALUKKAL HOUSE, NADUVATTAM KARA, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY, SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE C.I. OF POLICE, N.PARAVUR, THROUGH BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S. HRITHWIK. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.921 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 ORDER The accused, in Crime No.478 of 2006 of North Paravur Police Station originally registered for an offence punishable under Section 498 I.P.C. for enticing the de facto complainant, a married woman and now pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), North Paravur as SC 375/09, challenges Annexure A-I order dated 27/2/2010 as per which the learned Additional Sessions Judge permitted the Circle Inspector of Police, North Paravoor to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure on the report of the prosecutor in charge of the case that an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. was also prima facie made out. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is the second time a further investigation is permitted by the trial court and the sword of Damocles is unnecessarily kept hanging over the head of the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that even assuming that there is a case for further investigation, the trial of the case should not have been stopped to the detriment of the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 921/2010 : 2 : 3. First of all, the petitioner/accused has no locus standi to challenge the further investigation of the case. Secondly this is a case in which, according to the de facto complainant, the petitioner was trying to blackmail by taking her photograph in a mobile phone and that evidence of the alleged rape punishable under Section 376 I.P.C also has to be collected during the further investigation in the matter. 4. Legally speaking the investigating officer need only report about the further investigation which is actually the prerogative of the police. There is no need for the Court to grant permission to conduct further investigation. The purpose of seeking formal permission of the Court is only to inform the Court about the further investigation so that further trial of the case shall not be proceeded with. The contention of the petitioner that the Court below should have proceeded with the case during further investigation, cannot be upheld. No grounds have been made to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. The Court below shall proceed with the case after receipt of the supplementary final report. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj