IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4197 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.4024/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOKULAN, GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDNET OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4197 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.744 of 2007 of Kottayam West Police Station. That crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under section 156(3) cr.P.C. 2. The crux of the allegations raised by the petitioner/ defacto complainant is that his brother, the first accused, along with the second accused, his nephew, and the third accused, a Notary Public, have forged a Power of Attorney under which the petitioner is shown to have given authority for the first accused to execute certain documents on his behalf. The petitioner came to this Court complaining that no proper investigation is being conducted. By Annex.II order the petitioner was directed to approach the learned Magistrate. He approached the learned Magistrate and Annexs.III and Annex.VI orders were passed by the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C.No. 4197 of 2008 2 3. The short grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of all these steps, no proper investigation has been conducted by the second respondent, S.I. of Police. 4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. Statements have been filed. I have been taken through the relevant documents. 5. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations or the details of the steps taken. Fact remains that even today the original Power of Attorney, that is, the allegedly forged document, has not been seized by the Investigating Officer. A perusal of the records further reveal that no serious, pointed or efficient efforts have been employed by the second respondent to seize the original Power of Attorney, inspite of the directions issued by the learned Magistrate in Annexs. II and VI orders. I am satisfied that a proper investigation is not being conducted. 6. I do in these circumstances find merit in the request of the petitioner that the investigation deserves to be handed over to a safer, more competent and efficient hand. Crl.M.C.No. 4197 of 2008 3 7. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. It is directed that the first respondent shall conduct the investigation personally into Crime No.744 of 2007 and shall submit periodical reports every month to the Magistrate concerned, the first of which shall be filed on or before 1.1.2009. The learned Magistrate shall monitor the investigation and issue appropriate directions from time to time. (R. BASANT) Judge tm