IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 519 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.7004/2009 IN CC.789/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.G.RAGHAVAN, S/O.GOVINDAN ACHARI, PATTUKULANGARA, ATTUVA MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.519 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22 nd day of March, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner challenges the order dated 5.1.2010 passed by the J.F.C.M-I, Mavelikara dismissing his application filed as C.M.P.No.7004/2009 requesting for further investigation of the case. 2. On 20.11.2009, the Station House Officer, Mavelikkara filed a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C against the driver of a stage carriage bus by name “Rahmath” bearing Registration No. KL 4 N 9303 for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. 3.. The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid bus collided with another bus by name “Al Noore” bearing Registration No. KL -29-A-8278 resulting in injuries to the passengers. 4. According to the revision petitioner, himself and his wife Saraswathi Amma were passengers in the “Rahmath” bus and the petitioner's wife sustained grievous hurt in the same Crl.R.P. No. 519 of 2010 2 occurrence. However, the police did not question the petitioner or his wife during the stage of investigation. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid petition before the Magistrate praying for further investigation. Since the petitioner had invoked Section 156(3) and 173(8) Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application saying that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C cannot be invoked at the post-cognizance stage. Cognizance had already been taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No.789/2009. According to the revision petitioner, he was not aware of the exact stage at which the case was pending and that was why he had invoked Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and 173(8) Cr.P.C in the application. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor. If, as a matter of fact , the petitioner and his wife were passengers in the Rahmath bus which allegedly collided with another bus Al Noore, resulting in the petitioner's wife sustaining grievous injuries, in the fitness of things the Investigating Officer should have recorded the statements of the petitioner and his wife under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. That had not been done. This was a case for further Crl.R.P. No. 519 of 2010 3 investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Merely because the petitioner had invoked Section 156(3) also in the application, it did not deserve a dismissal of the application in which Section 173(8) was also quoted. Accordingly, the request for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C shall stand allowed and the court below shall await supplementary final report after further investigation by the Station House Officer, Mavelikkara. The revision is allowed as above. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj