IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2007 / 20TH PAUSHA 1928 WP(C).No. 36170 of 2007(E) -------------------------- CC.136/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ABDUL LATHEEF, THOTTINKARA VEEDU, KARICHARRA, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, MANGALAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUBAIDA BEEVI, W/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI. SHAJIN S. HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 36170/2007 : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. ALONG WITH F.I.S. IN CRIME NO. 549/2006 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO. 136/07. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OUT PATIENT RECORD ISSUED FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C). No. 36170 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed by a husband and wife who are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in crime No. 549/2006 of Mangalapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 427, 323 and 294(b) r/w Section 149 IPC, they seek a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to consider Exts.P4 and P5 representations submitted by the petitioners for further investigation of the case. 2. Admittedly, the above case has ended in a charge sheet filed against the petitioners and others. If according to the petitioners the investigation has not been satisfactory they can take advantage of the same during the trial of the case. A further investigation at the instance of the accused cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. However, since Exts.P4 and P5 representations are pending before respondents 3 and 4, they may consider and dispose of the said representations expeditiously. But it is made clear that further investigation W.P.(C) NO. 36170/2007 : 2 : cannot be ordered merely because the accused in the case desires such a course. It can be ordered only if new material is forthcoming or if there is a manifest defect in the investigation resulting in miscarriage of justice, but not to jettison justice. This writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 3 and 4 to consider Ext.P4 and P5 representations and pass appropriate orders according to law. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) NO. 36170/2007 : 3 :