IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1738 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.4370/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- K.K.SASIKUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN, MANIMANGALATH HOUSE, MYSORE MALA P.O., MURINGAPURAI, MUKKOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.S.SMITHA (PARAKKAL) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUKKOM POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.1738 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.348 of 2006 of Mukkam Police Station registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 364 and 395 r/w 149 I.P.C. That crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has raised allegations against the relatives of the wife of the petitioner in that complaint. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted and the police came to the conclusion that there is no substance in the allegations raised. The case was referred as false and report was made before the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioner, it is submitted at the Bar, has subsequently filed a protest complaint aggrieved by the refer report filed by the police after investigation. Though such a protest complaint has been filed, the learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner will not be able to establish the allegations if the case were to proceed as a private complaint. The counsel prays that there may be a direction under Crl.M.C No.1738 of 2008 2 Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the Investigating Officer to conduct a fresh investigation on the basis of the fresh complaint. 3. I am afraid, the petitioner has totally misconceived the reliefs which are available to him under law. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the final report filed by the Investigating Officer, (he has been given due notice thereof) he must appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all his objections before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must consider such objections and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. If the learned Magistrate does not accept the objections and choose to accept the final report, the petitioner can pursue the fresh private complaint filed by him. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed granting opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise objections, if any. Such objections, if raised within a period of 15 days from this date, must be considered by the learned Magistrate and appropriate orders passed notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had not earlier raised any such objections. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-