IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32429 of 2009(Q) --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.408/2009 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION. ............ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- UTHAMAN, KAIRALI BHAVAN, KAZHUTHURTTI MURI, ARYANKAVU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDNT OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 4. JHANCY VARGHESE, D/O.MARY KUTTY, THOTTATHIL KALAI HOUSE, IRUTTI JUNTION, KAZHUTHURUTHI, ARYANKAVU. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.C.NO.32429 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14th January 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second accused in crime No.408/2009 of Thenmala police station registered under Ext.P1 FIR for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506 (i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash Ext.P1 FIR and Ext.P2 F.I statement of fourth respondent based on which the crime was registered, to issue writ of mandamus not to conduct investigation of the case and for a further writ of mandamus commanding second respondent to proceed with the enquiry/investigation regarding Ext.P5 case. Wpc 32429/09 2 2. Ext.P1 FIR is registered on Ext.P2 FI statement submitted by fourth respondent. Though it is contended by the petitioner that ingredients of the offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted and if so, other offences being not cognizable, police cannot register a case, Ext.P2 FI statement establishes that there is allegation attracting the ingredients of the offence under Section 341 also. Hence Ext.P1 FIR cannot be quashed as sought for. 3. Though it is contended that writ of mandamus is to be issued for investigation of Ext.P5 complaint, Ext.P5 is a complaint filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur. There cannot be a direction to second respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punalur as sought for to conduct investigation Wpc 32429/09 3 of Ext.P5 case. It is for the learned Magistrate to decide whether cognizance is to be taken or whether complaint is to be sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. If learned Magistrate sent Ext.P5 complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and still there is no proper investigation, petitioner is at liberty to approach this court, Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.