IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27184 of 2009(Q) --------------------------------------- CC.415/2008 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.O. THOMAS, AGED 57, S/O.OUSEPH, MADATHIL HOUSE, NEERICADU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AYERKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.C.NO.27184 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd November 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the de facto complaint in C.C.415/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam taken cognizance for the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code on Ext.P3 final report filed under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 petition filed by the petitioner before first respondent, the District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam to re-investigate the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that proper investigation was not conducted and material witnesses were not questioned and though an offence under Section 324of Indian Penal Code is attracted, final report was filed only for the offence under Section 323 or Indian Penal Code. Reliance was placed on Wpc 27184/09 2 Ext.P1 wound certificate as well as Ext.P2 complaint filed by the petitioner before Deputy Superintendent of Police on 4/2/2008 subsequent to the registration of the case, complaining that police was reluctant to register the case and to record the statement of the witnesses. 4. On hearing the learned counsel I do not find any necessity to direct the first respondent to order further investigation. In Ext.P2 complaint filed before the Deputy Superintendent of police, petitioner has not named any person who had witnessed the incident or whose evidence was refused to be recorded by the investigating officer. It is not stated even in Ext.P4 petition filed before the first respondent for further investigation. In such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get any direction to the first respondent to order further investigation. Petitioner is at liberty to file private complaint before the Magistrate if he has a case that offence committed is not as stated in Ext.P3. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.