IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3393 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.548/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- G.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 50 YEARS, 'ROHINI HOUSE', KODUMON, EDATHITTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP SRI.R.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M.J.EMIL, MANIMANDIRAM HOUSE, KADAMPANAD P.O., MANNADI, ADOOR. 5. SAJITHA EMIL, W/O.M.J.EMIL, MANIMANDIRAM HOUSE, KADAMPANAD P.O. MANNADI, ADOOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3393 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner had filed a private complaint alleging that respondents 4 and 5 had committed offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that respondents 4 and 5 had induced the de facto complainant to offer his property as security for the purpose of raising a demand draft to facilitate participation in an abkari auction. It is contended that it was done by the accused persons with fraudulent intention. They did not actually take part in the abkari auction. They did instead fraudulently get the demand draft drawn in the name of the excise authorities encashed and appropriated the amounts. This, in short, is the allegation. The complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. Long later, when the complainant came to know that proper investigation has not been conducted, he approached this court raising a grievance that proper investigation has not been conducted. By Annexure III order, the petitioner was directed to approach the learned Magistrate with an appropriate application Crl.M.C.No.3393/08 2 under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The petitioner approached the learned Magistrate; but the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order Annexure IV, rejected the said prayer. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no serious and worthwhile investigation has been conducted. To drive home the point, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no investigation has been conducted as to how and in what manner the demand draft payable to the excise authorities had been got encashed by the accused persons. On this aspect also there is no proper investigation worth the name at all, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. No officer from the bank has been cited as a witness to speak on this aspect. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the police may be directed to conduct further investigation as held in the decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala [2003(2) KLT 929]. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, after discussions with the present investigating officer, submits that it is true that no Crl.M.C.No.3393/08 3 specific investigation has been conducted on this aspect - as to how the demand draft was got encashed. Appropriate directions may be issued and the police shall conduct necessary further investigation, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner is perfectly justified. The impugned order warrants interference. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. c) Police is directed to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and complete the same expeditiously. d) It is directed that the third respondent/Director General of Police shall ensure that a proper further investigation is conducted by a competent senior police official in the matter. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3393/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3393/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008