IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009/26TH ASHADA 1931 CRMC.No. 2390 of 2007 ( ) ------------------------- CC.330/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG ..... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: C.USHA, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAYYANGANAM, KARINTHALAM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SMT.V.SETHUKUTTY AMMA COMPLAINANTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 2390 of 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th September, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed by de facto complainant. On a statement given by her to police, a crime was registered as Crime No.91/2006 of Neeleswaram Police Station, under Sections 323, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused 1 and 2. Later, on investigation, it was found by police that second accused is not involved and hence, as per Annexure-5 charge sheet, a report was given that second accused is deleted from array of accused. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said action by the police. 2. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct investigation in Crime No.91/2006 of Neeleswaram Police Station by some other agency or superior police officers. There is also another prayer to direct that trial in the case on the file of the Magistrate Court be continued only on receipt Crl.M.C.2390/07 2 of further reports from the police. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses contain specific allegations against second accused constituting various offences alleged. But, in spite of this, the police deleted second accused from the array of accused, illegally. That is why this petition is filed for an investigation by some other agency. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach trial court itself under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, in the light of the decision reported in Sakri Vasu v. State of Utter Pradesh ( (2008) 2 SCC 409). The petitioner can also move trial court to proceed against second accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that petitioner has even the right to file a private complaint, if so advised. 4. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that second accused is deleted only because as per the wound certificate issued, the name of the second Crl.M.C.2390/07 3 accused is not seen mentioned to doctor and hence, second accused cannot be said to have committed the offence. It is also submitted that witnesses were questioned by the investigating officer and it is revealed from their statements that second accused is not involved in the crime and that is why she was deleted from the array of accused. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the records made available, I find that petitioner has remedy under other provisions of Cr.P.C. to redress her limited grievance against deletion of second accused from the array of accused. If the court has taken cognizance only against first accused, petitioner is not without any remedy to bring second accused also into the array of accused, at the appropriate stage. Though the prayer is to direct some other agency or superior police officers to conduct investigation into the crime, the purpose is to see that the second accused is also brought in as an accused, since according to petitioner, involvement of Crl.M.C.2390/07 4 second accused is revealed from the records submitted by the police. 6. When other remedies are available to petitioner under Cr.P.C. to redress the grievance, it is not necessary for this Court to interfere, by invoking power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is however made clear that disposal of this petition will not stand in the way of petitioner in taking appropriate steps for proceeding against second accused also, in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs. /True copy/ P.S to Judge