IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3199 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.556/2009 of JFCM, KASARAGOD .......... PETITIONER: SOMASHEKARA J.S., S/O. JANARDHANA NAYAK (LATE), SHENI, THOTTADAMANA, MAIRE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: 1. SUDHAKARAN MASTER, S/O. AMMU POOJARI, SAMEKOCHI HOUSE, KATUKUKE VILLAGE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BADIADUKA POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, KASARAGOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3199 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C. No.556/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasargod, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 452 and 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code upon Annexure- A2 final report. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that even in the first information statement, the part played by the first respondent was specifically mentioned, still, in the final report, he was not implicated as an accused and in such circumstances, further investigation is to be conducted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 3199/09 2 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the first informant is a Kannadiya and he does not know Malayalam and a subsequent statement, purported to be recorded from him, is to the effect that first respondent is not involved in the incident, so as to exclude him from the case and it is due to political reasons and first respondent is the real principal culprit and the kin pin and in such circumstances, a proper investigation is to be conducted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a proper investigation was conducted and on the investigation, it was found that first respondent was not involved in the incident and that is the reason why he was not implicated as an accused in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no reason to order further investigation. 5. On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor and on going through CRMC 3199/09 3 Annexure-A2 final report, I find no reason to order further investigation as sought for. Ultimately, it is for the learned Magistrate, while trying the case, to decide who are the real culprits. If, on the evidence, learned Magistrate finds that somebody other than the accused, who are facing trial, is also involved in the incident, including the first respondent, learned Magistrate, is, definitely, entitled to take action as provided under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. I find no justification for ordering further investigation. If petitioner has any grievance, he is entitled to file a private complaint as against the alleged accused, who are omitted in the final report. Petition is disposed. 15th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv