IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2798 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.8/03 OF AMBALAPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2 & 3 ---------------------------- 1. KAMALAMMA, PRASANNA BHAVAN, KARUMADI P.O AMBALAPPUZHA. 2. PADMA, PRASANNA BHAVAN, KARUMADI P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. S.SREEJAYADEVI, JYOTHIS, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR, KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2798 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioners were arrayed as accused 2 and 3 in a complaint filed by the de facto complainant/1st respondent herein before the police. A crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. In the final report, allegations were raised only against the 1st accused and no allegations were raised against the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate, on the final report, took cognizance against the 1st accused alone. Aggrieved by the deletion of the petitioners from the array of accused and the final report, the de facto complainant filed a private complaint. Objections were also raised evidently against the quality of investigation conducted. The Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, by Annexure-C order directed that further Crl.M.C. No. 2798 of 2008 -: 2 :- investigation be conducted with the leave of the court urgently. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the police report and on the basis of the protest complaint filed. It is during the pendency of those two cases that further investigation under Sec.173(8) Cr.P.C. has been ordered. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the direction to conduct further investigation is without any basis. No further investigation need be conducted. None should have been ordered to be conducted. In these circumstances, further investigation undertaken by the Investigating Officer on the basis of Annexure-C order may be set aside, it is prayed. 3. What are the reasons? First of all, the learned counsel contends that no permission of the court under Sec.173(8) Cr.P.C. has been obtained. Annexure-C order very clearly stipulates that further investigation of the case must be conducted urgently “with the leave of the court”. I have no reason to assume that such leave will not be obtained or shall not be granted. The objection raised on the ground that no permission of the court has been sought is, in these circumstances, without any merit. 4. Secondly, it is contended that there are no circumstances justifying the conduct of further investigation. I Crl.M.C. No. 2798 of 2008 -: 3 :- am unable to agree. The fact that a protest complaint has been filed and cognizance has been taken is no reason to deny the Investigator of his option/discretion to conduct further investigation. In fact, the fact that cognizance has been taken on a private complaint is indicative of the need to conduct further investigation. 5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that Annexure-C order or further investigation ordered hereunder does not deserve to be interfered with or quashed. 6. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2798 of 2008 -: 4 :-