IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1565 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED ----------------------- PANKAJAKSHANAN, S/O.KUMARAN, CHIRAKKAPADI HOUSE, KUZHIKKALA-THENGODE, THRIKKAKKARA, EKM (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.ANANDAN PILLAI SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKAKKARA POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM (DIST). 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C that the crime registered against him may be quashed. According to the petitioner, the local Sub Inspector has animus and malafidies against him and he has with malicious motive of vexation and harassment against the petitioner, registered FIR in Crime No.805/07. That crime relates to an incident on 25.12.07. 2. The petitioner further alleges that the very same Sub Inspector who has animus against the petitioner had registered the crime and has proceeded to conduct investigation into the crime. It was prayed that the FIR may be quashed. Alternatively, it was submitted that, at any rate, the investigation deserves to be conducted by a senior official of the police and not by the complainant himself. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor was on 10.06.08 directed to take instructions. It was also mentioned in the order dated 10.06.08 that the investigation must be entrusted to a senior Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008 2 officer. The learned Prosecutor after taking instructions submits that the alleged incident had taken place on 25.12.07. All the accused, except 9th accused have by now been arrested. Petitioner has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. It is not correct to say that the officer who recorded the FIR is conducting the investigation also. As per the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Circle Inspector of police had taken over the investigation with effect from 21.01.08. It is that officer who was continuing the investigation. The allegation that the aggrieved himself is conducting the investigation is not correct. Learned Prosecutor further submits that long prior to the filing of this Crl.M.C, on 08.04.08, the final report has already been filed on 20.03.08. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. In these circumstances, this petition may now be dismissed, it is prayed. 4. The learned counsel even now prays that the FIR registered and all further steps may be quashed. What is the reason? Learned counsel for the petitioner repeats the allegation Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008 3 that the Sub Inspector who detected the offence has malafide motives and animus against the petitioner. This is of course to be raised and substantiated before the learned Magistrate in the course of trial. Counsel further submits that there is incongruity between the FIR registered and the remand report under which the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate. The counsel argues that there is a question as to whether the incident took place by the side of a canal bund or on a public road. There is incongruity between the FIR and the remand report on this aspect. In both, it is stated that the incident took place near the Pranavam Arts Club. The dispute is whether that particular spot is canal bund or public road. I shall not embark on any further discussions on this controversy. Suffice to say that the said incongruity does not persuade me at all to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination, the steps taken against the petitioner. 5. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008 4 fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim appropriate relief from the learned Magistrate on the basis of the materials placed before the learned Magistrate. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008 5 Crl.M.C. No. 1565 OF 2008 6