IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 854 of 2009(B) ------------------------------- (CRIME NO.93/09 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION) ......................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHOWKATHALI, FIROZ MANZIL, MADAN NADA, TYHEKKAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 2. THE JUNIOR SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. PICHA MUHAMMED RAWTHER, PALLIYACHAVATTIL VEEDU, SASTHAMANGALAM, MADATHARA, CHITHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 854 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure- IX, FIR or in the alternative to issue a direction to the first respondent to take over the investigation in Crime No.93/2009 of Kadakkal Police Station forthwith. The brief facts would reveal that the controversy involved in the matter is with respect to the execution of an agreement. It is contended by the defacto complainant that it is a fraudulent creation by the accused with intention to cheat and on the contra the contention of the other side was that it is a valid document executed and on the strength of the same a suit for specific performance has been filed and it is pending before a competent Court. It is true that if it is proved before a civil Court action may or may not lie u/s 195 or so but when the question of cheating, fabrication and forging etc. are alleged and a criminal complaint is filed it is also to be investigated and therefore one cannot hold the Crl.M.C. 854 OF 2009 -:2:- pendency of a civil litigation would create a bar for filing and conducting of investigation in such cases. Therefore without expressing anything on the merits of the case I am not inclined to grant the prayer to quash the FIR. 2. The second prayer is to have an investigation done by the Dy.S.P. Punalur. The specific grievance and averments is that the defacto complainant is in hand in glove with the Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police is a subordinate to the other person and if investigation is done by the Sub Inspector of Police it will go against the accused for reasons stated above. When such is the apprehension and the relationship etc. are stated it is always desirable that the investigation is done by a senior officer. So I allow the prayer to have the investigation done by the Dy.S.P., Punalur and the Sub Inspector shall hand over all the papers to the Dy.S.P. Punalur for investigation. In the result Crl.M.C is disposed of as follows. (1) The prayer to quash the FIR is disallowed. Crl.M.C. 854 OF 2009 -:3:- (2) The prayer to have the investigation done by the Dy.S.P. Punalur is allowed and the Sub Inspector of Police is directed to hand over the file relating to the investigation to the first respondent for further investigation. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-