IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 637 of 2011() ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- ALEYAMMA VARGHESE, W/O.T.V. VARGHESE, AGED 61 YEARS, VADAKKEVETTIL HOUSE, AKKANATTUKARA MURI, THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVALIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P OFFICE, KOLLAM-680501 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, PUNALOOR 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-686502 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA-690101 6. SARAMMA JOSEPH, SHIBU BHAVANAM, KUTHIRACHIRA, PUNALOOR.P.O-690001 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : ADV SRI K J MOHAMMAD ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.637 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of March, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed by the de facto complainant in Crime No.755 of 2010 of Mavelikara Police Station involving allegation of forgery of a Nursing Certificate allegedly made by the sixth respondent who is none other than the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. Petitioner preferred Annexure-A9, complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara who forwarded the complaint to the Mavelikara police under Sec.156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”). The police registered Crime No.755 of 2010. Grievance of petitioner is that no investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector. Thereon, petitioner filed application before learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Code stating that no effective investigation is being conducted. Learned Magistrate called for a report. The investigating officer stated in his report that since the original of the forged documents are not available he is not able to investigate the matter effectively. Thereon petitioner filed Annexure-A10, petition before the learned Magistrate on 14.01.2010 and along with that petition produced four documents Crl.M.C.No.637 of 2011 -: 2 :- (in original which according to the petitioner are forged). Grievance of petitioner is that even thereafter no proper investigation was conducted. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-A6 to show that no Certificate of Nursing as claimed by the sixth respondent was issued by the authority concerned. It is also the contention of petitioner that though originally he was under the impression that only the Nursing Certificate was forged by the sixth respondent, further developments revealed that all the certificates right from the S.S.L.C book have been forged by the sixth respondent. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. According to the learned counsel for petitioner since the forgery is part of a wide racket the Sub Inspector may not be able to investigate the case effectively since the offences may have been committed even beyond his jurisdictional limits. I am however not inclined to accept that contention. 3. As it stands now I do not think it necessary to entrust investigation to a different agency. The Sub Inspector who is in charge of the investigation shall conduct investigation effectively and in the proper line. Learned counsel submits that original documents produced by the petitioner have already been Crl.M.C.No.637 of 2011 -: 3 :- received by the Sub Inspector. Necessarily, Sub Inspector has to investigate the case as provided under law. 4. I also make it clear that in case any further direction in the matter is required it is open to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for such direction to the investigating officer. With the above observation this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-