IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 744 OF 2011() ------------------------ CRIME NO.95 OF 2010 OF PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- P.P.SHAJI, S/O.PAPPAN, RESIDING AT PLATHOOTTATHIL HOUSE, LAKSHMICOVIL P.O., RANICOVIL, PERUMEEDU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. PRIYA DEVAKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, ELAPPARA KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, LAKSHMICOVIL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAUBY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.744 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 O R D E R This petition is to quash Annexures-A1, A2 and A10 in Crime No.95 of 2010 of Peerumedu Police Station where the allegation is that petitioner committed rape on his 11 years old daughter. Annexure-A1 is the complaint preferred by the wife of petitioner (before the complaint was filed, petitioner obtained an order of divorce against her) and Annexure-A2 is the FIR. Annexure-A10 is the final report submitted by the Circle Inspector who investigated the case. 2. Petitioner had filed W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010 in this Court seeking reinvestigation of the case by an Officer superior in rank to the Circle Inspector of police, Peerumedu. All the points in this petition were raised in the said Writ Petition and after consideration of the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor I have dismissed the Writ Petition by dictating judgment this day. Learned counsel for petitioner was again heard on 10.03.2011. 3. I have considered all the relevant points raised in this CRL.M.C. No.744 of 2011 -: 2 :- petition in W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010 and found that there is no scope for ordering reinvestigation or investigation by any other Officer. I also found that none of the contentions urged by the learned counsel could be accepted and that the trail court has to decide the case on the facts and evidence produced before it. Having heard learned counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and in the light of the detailed discussion I have made in that case, the request to quash Annexures-A1, A2 and A10 cannot be allowed. Petitioner has to face the trail. It is open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions in the trial court. It is also open to the petitioner to bring out in the trial of the case any irregularity, impropriety or deficiency in investigation as he contends. Trial court shall decide the case untrammelled by any observation or finding contained in this order. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv