IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2007 / 19TH SRAVANA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 2519 of 2004 --------------------------------------- CRMP.8800/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: BABY. P.V. AGED 30, S/O. LATE VARKEY, PAPPARIL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., EZIPPURAM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SRI.BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: 1. T.U. JACOB, S.I. OF POLICE, PUTHENCURUZ POLICE STATION, PUTHENCURUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. JOY MATHAI, P.C.NO.7508, POLICE CONSTABLE, DO. DO. 3. RAJENDRAN, ARPC NO.8651, DO. DO. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DO. DO. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 2519 of 2004 --------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in Annexure-II complaint forwarded for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., vide Annexure-I order, to the C.I. of Police, Puthencruz. Annexure-II complaint is filed by the petitioner, complaining of commission by respondents 1 to 3 of offences punishable under Sections 166, 323 and 341 IPC read with Section 34 thereof and under Sections 42(c), 42(e), 42(f), 42(g) and 42(h) and 44 of the Kerala Police Act. Respondents 1 to 3 are respectively, the S.I. of Police, a Police Constable and a Police Constable of Armed Reserve, who are alleged to have committed the offences complained of by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has, vide Annexure-I order, directed the C.I. of Police, Puthencruz to conduct investigation in the case, the accused being police officers, upto the rank of S.I. of Police. CRMC 2519/04 2 2. The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan (2001 (1) KLT 563) held that the power of the Magistrate cannot be stretched under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct investigation. 3. Public Prosecutor submits that the Station House Officer at Puthencruz Police Station is the first accused himself and not the C.I. of Police. In the circumstances, Annexure-I order, directing the C.I. of Police, Puthencruz Police Station to conduct investigation into the offences alleged in Annexure-II complaint is illegal and deserves to be quashed. As Annexure-I order was being passed invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without notice to the respondents, notice to the respondents is not necessary and notice to respondents 1 to 3 is, hence, dispensed with. Public Prosecutor has already taken notice for respondents 4 and 5. CRMC 2519/04 3 In the result, allowing this Crl.M.C. I quash Annexure-I order and direct the learned Magistrate to conduct enquiry into Annexure-II complaint himself, without forwarding it for investigation to the police. 10th August, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv