IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 349 of 2010(Q) ------------------------------------ CC.118/2009 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BALACHANDRAN AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. SANKUNNY PODUVAL, 'DEEPTHY', SANTHI NAGAR, MOONUKUTTI, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), SMT.R.RAJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D, THRISSUR. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIN ON 23/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.349 of 2010 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner, the defacto complainant in Crime No.490/2008 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, registered for the offences under Sections 457, 461 and 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus to conduct further investigation contending that no proper investigation was conducted before submitting the final report. It is contended that the stolen gold ornaments or the gold ingots were not seized and though it was revealed that the stolen gold ornaments were sold to the seventh accused, he was not arrested and in such circumstances, further investigation is to be ordered. 2. As directed by this Court, Circle Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thrissur filed a statement showing the progress of the WPC 349/10 2 investigation, traversing the contentions raised by the petitioner. The statement reveals that Circle Inspector of Police, who took over the charge on 14.01.2009, after getting a copy of the petition, verified the case diary and he is fully satisfied that the material objects involved in the crime were not seized from the seventh accused, who is the receiver of the stolen articles from the sixth accused, who in turn, received it from the third accused and seventh accused was not even arrested and still, he is shown as an absconding accused in the final report. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. 4. The statement filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thrissur, after verifying the case diary, establishes that there was no proper investigation, as rightly contended by the petitioner. The seventh accused, to whom the stolen ornaments were transferred by the sixth accused, who in turn received it from the WPC 349/10 3 third accused, was not arrested and the gold ornaments or the gold ingots were not seized. In such circumstances, it is necessary to order further investigation as sought for. Petition is allowed. Circle Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thrissur is directed to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure after filing a report before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur, where C.C.No.118/2009 is pending, that the case is being investigated under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal procedure and seeking formal permission. On such report being filed, the Magistrate to grant permission. Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur is directed not to proceed with C.C.No. 118/2009 till a report is submitted after further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 23rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv