IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 538 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ (C.C. NO. 404/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA, CRIME NO. 243/06 OF ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION) ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SONU K.JOSE, S/O.JOSE, KOLLIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAMBARA, THALAPPULAM VILLAGE. 2. REJI JOSE @ MINI, W/O.JOSE K.S., KOLLIYIL HOUSE, DO. DO. BY ADV. MR.V.K.SUNIL. RESPONDENTS/STATE (COMPLAINANT) & ANOTHER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MINI, W/O.BINS, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA, ERATTUPETTA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.538 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER First petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 404/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Erattupetta, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 67 of Information Technology Act on Annexure-II final report. By Annexure-V order, learned Magistrate permitted the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the dispute is only personal between aunt and nephew and based on Annexure-II final report, there is no likelihood of a successful conviction and therefore, Annexure-II final report is to be quashed. Learned counsel also argued that by CRMC 538/10 2 Annexure-V order, learned Magistrate permitted the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation with regard to Mobile Phone No.9846545589 and even if the case is to be investigated further, all aspects raised by the petitioners may also be considered during further investigation. 4. By Annexure-V order, learned Magistrate permitted the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Sub-section (8) does not provide that further investigation is permissible only with the leave of the court or that the court has to direct on what angle further investigation is to be made. When a final report is submitted and was taken cognizance by the Magistrate, further investigation shall be conducted with the consent of the court, though, only a formal sanction is needed under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such CRMC 538/10 3 circumstances, when learned Magistrate is satisfied that further investigation is warranted, it was granted under Annexure-V order. 5. On going through the petition and admitted facts, I cannot disagree with the learned Magistrate that further investigation is warranted. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-V order. But, it is made clear that further investigation to be conducted by the Investigating Officer need not be confined to a particular aspect and the Investigating Officer can investigate the case thoroughly, including the aspects raised herein by the accused. 6. When further investigation has already been ordered under Annexure-V order, I find no reason to interfere with the cognizance taken and to quash Annexure-II final report. Petition is disposed accordingly. 2nd March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv