IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1642 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.706/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- 1. DIETZ GEN CREDO SOONER, AGED 36, S/O.SOONER, CHUDUKATTUNKAL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPE KARA(S), PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. 2. C.P.SOONER, AGED 68, S/O.PADMANABHAN,CHUDUKATTUNKAL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPE KARA(S), PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. 3. SATHI SOONER, AGED 66, W/O.SOONER, CHUDUKATTUNKAL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPE KARA(S), PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SRI.C.K.RAFEEK SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.FASHIYA YOUSEFF RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KOCHI. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL. 4. JITHU MOHAN, S/O.MOHANA PANICKER, PADIYATH VEEDU EDANADU KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DIST. 5. SOPHIYA SOONER, D/O.SOONER, CHUDUKATTUNKAL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPE KARA(S), PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. BY ADV.SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1642 of 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010. O R D E R The accused in C.C.No.706/07 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Kochi, are the revision petitioners and they are challenging the order dated 16.4.2010, of the learned Magistrate in M.P.No.2161/09 in C.C.No.706/07, by which the learned Magistrate issued a direction, directing the Sub Inspector of Police, Narakkal, to investigate the case further and to file a report u/s.173(8) of Cr.P.C., as expeditiously as possible and accordingly the further proceedings in C.C.No.706/07 are stayed, until the receipt of the above further investigating report. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that, the defacto complainant preferred the above petition with an ulterior motive to delay the prosecution proceedings and to harass the revision petitioners, especially the husband of the defacto complainant, who is working abroad. According to the counsel, the learned Magistrate has committed a serious mistake in issuing such an order, especially when the Crl. R.P.No.1642 of 2010 2 defacto complainant was not examined as a witness. According to the counsel, the defacto complainant continuously filing petitions to harass the revision petitioners, including the husband of the defacto complainant. 3. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by Smt.Aysha Youseff, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Going by the impugned order, it can be seen that the learned Magistrate had elaborately considered the merits and demerits of the petition and came into a specific conclusion that, the Investigating Officer, with whom the investigation was entrusted with, had not questioned the material witnesses and even though the statement of certain witnesses were recorded, the same was not recorded fully, correctly and properly. Thus after referring to the relevant materials, the learned Magistrate opined that it is expedient in the interest of justice to direct further investigation. The settled position would show that, even though cognizance was taken either upon the police report or upon a private complaint, the jurisdiction vested with the court u/s.173(8) of Crl. R.P.No.1642 of 2010 3 Cr.P.C., no way fettered ordering a further investigation. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that according to the defacto complainant, the independent witness cited by her was not examined, which would show that the best evidence available, which ought to have been collected by the Investigating Officer, kept away from the scrutiny of the court of law. Therefore, if the prosecution is forced to go on with the trial, with the incomplete and imperfect materials and evidence, certainly it will adversely affect the prosecution and consequently it will resulted in waste of judicial time and another round of litigation. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order, warranting the interference of this court in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/