IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1626 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRMP.108/2009IN CC NO.148/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- RAJESH KOSHY,S/O.K.V.KOSHY, OTTAPLAVU NILKKUNNATHIL VEEDU, MUTTATHUKONAM,CHENNERKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER/STATE --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTORSHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1626 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 5.5.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2009 in C.C.No.148 of 2007 of court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. 2. Case originated on a private complaint preferred by petitioner alleging that accused Nos.1 to 3 and ten identifiable persons who formed unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons like chopper, pickaxe, etc. committed rioting and trespassed into his property on 27.11.2006 at about 10 a.m., committed mischief by demolishing the boundary wall and removing branches of six rubber trees, voluntarily caused hurt to him and his mother and outraged modesty of his mother. Complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation. Police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 3 and ten identifiable persons. After investigation Police submitted final report against accused Nos. 1 to 3 but deleting offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 341 and 351 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner was not satisfied with that final report and filed Cr.M.P.No.313 of 2008 seeking further investigation. That request was allowed and as per order of the court police conducted further investigation. Thereafter a report was submitted stating that accused Nos.1 to 3 and other identifiable persons committed Crl.R.P.No.1626/2009 2 offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 354, 427, 434, 447 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Code. Still petitioner was not satisfied and filed C.M.P.No.108 of 2009 for further investigation. That petition did not find favour with the learned Chief Judicial magistrate. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that a reading of the statement of the petitioner and his mother recorded by the police in the subsequent investigation would show that it is against the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint. According to the learned counsel, that discrepancy was purposely brought in the statement of the petitioner and his mother to create contradictions with the allegations in the complaint and thus benefit the accused. It is also argued that even among the statement of the petitioner and his mother, contradictions are purposely brought in. The further contention is that Kunjukutty mentioned in the complaint as a witness to the incident was not questioned by the police. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, investigation was fair and proper and no further investigation is required as the charging officer has reported that on getting information about the unidentified persons who were also involved in the incident, police will submit a further report. Crl.R.P.No.1626/2009 3 4. I have gone through the statements referred to by learned counsel. Discrepancy pointed by the learned counsel is regarding the person who are said to have slapped the petitioner in the course of the incident. In the complaint it is stated that accused, James slapped the petitioner. But in the statement of the mother, it is stated that accused, Joseph slapped on the face of the petitioner. 5. It is open to the petitioner and his witnesses to give appropriate evidence in the court as to the case stated in the complaint. Ultimately it is for the court below to consider whether the alleged discrepancy is really so and at any rate, is material. I do not think that for that reason, a further investigation is required. 6. It is seen and learned Public Prosecutor also agreed that Kunjukutty, witness No.2 in the list of witnesses appended to the complaint was not questioned in the further investigation. According to the petitioner, Kunjukutty is capable of giving information about the unidentified persons involved in the incident but he was not questioned in the further investigation. I think that the investigating officer should have looked into that aspect and ascertained whether that witness could give any further information regarding Crl.R.P.No.1626/2009 4 the unidentified persons alleged to be involved in the incident. Investigating officer shall further investigate into that matter and submit a report in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without further delay. Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observation. Crl.M.A.No.4951 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks