IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1652 of 2010() ------------------------- CRIME NO.187/2009 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DR.P.SAMUEL GEORGE, S/O.SAMUEL, AGED 64 YEARS, PEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B. C.I.D., ERNAKULAM. 4. SOBBY MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.N.M.MATHEW, NADAKKAL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. DR.V.S.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.M.P.VELAPPAN NAIR, SUMATHI NIVAS, SARKARA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SEA LAP SHIMMERS BEACH RESORTS PVT.LTD., BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C. No.1652 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated:07.06.2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.187/2009 of Panangad Police Station for offences punishable under sections 120B and 420 read with 34 IPC allegedly involving more than one crore rupees seeks a direction to the S.H.O, Panangad to hand over the investigation of Crime No.187/2009 to the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Ernakulam for the purpose of further investigation. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing Crl.M.C. No.2440/2009 for the same purpose. As per Annexure A3 order dated 11.8.2009 this Court dismissed the said petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned in view of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(1)KLT 724) 3. Thereafter the petitioner filed Annexure A4 detailed petition seeking the entrustment of the investigation of the Crl. M.C. No.1652 of 2010 2 above crime with the CBCID , Ernakulam and to direct the Superintendent of Police to file a report before the Court within a time frame fixed by the Court or in the alternative to monitor the investigation presently conducted by the S.H.O., Panangad. 4. According to the petitioner, eventhough the learned Magistrate had forwarded Annexure A4 petition to the 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Ernakulam, so far no further investigation is conducted by him. Hence this writ petition 5. This Court called for a report from the Additional C.J.M, Ernakulam. As per letter dated 3.6.2010 it has been reported by the learned Magistrate that Annexure A4 petition was wrongly forwarded by his predecessor in officer to the Superintendent of Police,CBCID under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C on 16.12.2009 and that fortunately the Superintendent of Police has not acted upon the said order. 6. When the original complaint itself was forwarded Crl. M.C. No.1652 of 2010 3 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. resulting in the registration of the above crime by the Panangad Police, there could not have been any further reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. What the learned Magistrate did on 16.12.2009 was a wrong procedure which cannot be justified in law. 7. In Annexure A3 order dated 11.8.2009 this Court observed as follows:- “ If the case of the petitioner is that investigation of the case is to be handed over to the third respondent, as held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(1)KLT 724), the petitioner has to approach the concerned Magistrate for appropriate direction with regard to the investigation.” Thus, this Court recognised the power of the Magistrate concerned to hand over the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch, if need be. Annexure A4 petition shall stand revived. The petitioner can move the Magistrate as per Annexure A4 petition explaining the circumstances warranting the handing over of investigation to the Crime Crl. M.C. No.1652 of 2010 4 Branch of Police. The learned Magistrate shall consider the same, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders on Annexure A4 application. Since it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that investigation of the Panangad Police is no more pending and that the Police has filed a final report charge sheeting two persons as the accused, it goes without saying that Annexure A4 petition shall be treated as a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and orders shall be passed after hearing both sides. If the circumstances so warrant, it shall be open to the learned Magistrate to order further investigation by the Crime Branch of Police. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj