IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 277 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO. 411/06 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION CC.805/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- N.RAJASREE, W/O (LATE)ARAVINDAKSHAN 'VIJAYA MANDIRAM],PARAMBILANGADI, KLARI AMSOM DESOM, TIROORANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SUB.INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 277 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution initiated, inter alia, under Section 471 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that an fixed deposit receipt was forged and encahsed on the strength of the forged signature of the defacto complainant in such fixed deposit receipt. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Trial is about to commence. 2. At this juncture the petitioner has realised that there has been no proper investigation in the case. He is particularly aggrieved by the fact that the allegedly forged signature has not been sent to an expert to solicit his expert opinion as to whether the signature in the fixed deposit receipt is forged or not. This inadequacy may help the accused and defeat the cause of justice. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court for issue of appropriate direction under Section 482 Crl.M.C.No. 277 of 2009 2 Cr.P.C. The petitioner points out that earlier he had requested the Superintendent of Police to take necessary action to get a further investigation conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. But no effective action has been taken. 3. The grievance of the petitioner prima facie appears to be legitimate on the basis of the submissions made at the Bar. But the course adopted by the petitioner cannot certainly be said to be justified. I find no justification in his rushing to this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has an equally efficacious alternative remedy to move the learned Magistrate under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The decision in Shaji v. State (2003 (2) KLT 929) makes it crystal clear that a defacto complainant aggrieved by inadequate quality of investigation conducted can request the Magistrate to direct a further investigation to be conducted. Instead of doing that, the petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to this Court. 4. I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C. only deserves to be dismissed, but with the specific observation that the option of the petitioner Crl.M.C.No. 277 of 2009 3 under law to move the learned Magistrate for directions under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. 6. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm