IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 337 OF 2011() ----------------------------------------- CMP.11502/2010 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BINDU, D/O.MARY, PEEPPIVILAKOM VEEDU, PULLUVILA, KARINKULAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTEDBY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM, (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No. 337 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Annexure-IV, order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara on December 10, 2010 on C.M.P. No.11502 of 2010 in Crime No.149 of 2010 of Kanjiramkulam police station is under challenge. Petitioner-de facto complainant alleged that on the night of 21.01.2010 while she was half asleep one Martin snatched away her gold chain. She filed a complaint implicating the said Martin for the alleged theft and his wife for allegedly receiving the gold chain knowing it to be a stolen article. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Karnjiramkulam police registered Crime No.149 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since according to the petitioner investigation was not proceeding in the correct line, she filed C.M.P. No. 11502 of 2010 seeking a direction that the case be investigated by a superior officer of the Sub Inspector or other agency. Learned Magistrate called for a report from the Sub CRL.M.C. No.337 of 2011 -: 2 :- Inspector who was investigating the case. The Sub Inspector submitted Annexure-III, report stating that the case be included in the list of undetected cases. Based on that, the learned Magistrate has passed Annexure-IV, order holding that monitoring of the case or change of investigating officer is not required. Consequently that petition was dismissed. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submits that learned Magistrate has not properly considered Annexure-III, report submitted by the Sub Inspector. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is seen that in Annexure-III, report at one stage it is stated that in the course of investigation it was revealed that the accused (obviously referring to Martin) committed theft of gold chain weighing ¾ sovereign while petitioner was half asleep stretching his arm through the window on 21.01.2010 at or about midnight. Further in the same report it is stated that neither the accused (obviously Martin) nor his wife is involved in the alleged incident. There was a case registered as Crime No.102 of 2010 pending consideration in the court of learned Magistrate as C.C. No.256 of 2010 for assaulting a relative of petitioner and on account of that enmity petitioner filed the complaint against the accused persons, it is stated in the said report. CRL.M.C. No.337 of 2011 -: 3 :- 3. On going through Annexure-III, report I find some contradiction in that report as to the alleged involvement of the accused. Hence I am inclined to think that the matter requires to be investigated further. Since the Sub Inspector who was investigating the case has given contradictory statements in Annexure-III, report it is only proper that an officer superior to him continued the investigation. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-IV, order is set aide. The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Thiruvananthapuram is directed to entrust investigation of the case to an officer senior in rank to the Sub Inspector presently dealing with the case for further investigation of the matter. Appropriate orders in that regard shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall make available a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram for compliance. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv