IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 882 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.480/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR] .................... PETITIONER/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- JYOTHISH.K.P., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, KADAN VEETTIL HOUSE, PAPPINISSERI AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SARATH KUMAR, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT `SARATH', ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, KIZHUTHALL, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 007. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.882 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.314 of 2007 of Kannur Town Police Station and C.C.No.480 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur. Complaint was initially filed against respondent No.1 alleging that petitioner had borrowed `.18 lakhs from respondent No.1 on various occasions and all those occasions respondent No.1 obtained signed blank cheques and stamp papers from petitioner and his wife. Petitioner repaid `.80 lakhs to respondent No.1 but the documents were not returned to him. Respondent No.1, making use of the said signed blank cheques and stamp papers filed cases against petitioner's wife through other persons. The Police investigated the case and filed final report against respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 18A (6A) of the Money Lenders Act. Unsatisfied with the investigation and in so far as other persons allegedly involved in the case are not implicated as accused, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.4744 of 2008 before the learned Magistrate for further investigation. Learned Magistrate allowed that application and further investigation was ordered. After further investigation the Police submitted report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) arraying two more persons as witnesses for the prosecution. Grievance of the Crl.MC No.882/2011 2 petitioner is that those persons also should have been arrayed as accused since it is making use of signed blank cheques given to respondent No.1 that those witnesses filed cases against petitioner's wife under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prayer in this petition is to direct a further investigation of the case by the Crime Branch or the Special Investigation Team headed by an efficient Officer. Learned counsel has submitted that even in the complaint, petitioner had given serial number of the cheques respondent No.1 (allegedly) had obtained from petitioner's wife and which the two witnesses now additionally incorporated by the Investigating Agency have made use of to implicate the wife of petitioner in cases for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. I have been taken through the statement of witnesses additionally added by the prosecution. There, those witnesses stated about alleged transactions they had with the petitioner or his wife and the wife of petitioner issuing cheques bearing serial Nos.390372 and 390376 for discharge of that liability and based on the dishonour of those cheques their filing cases against wife of the petitioner. Crl.MC No.882/2011 3 3. Learned Magistrate had already ordered further investigation and further investigation report is filed. It is not as if until full satisfaction of petitioner, further investigation could be directed. It is not within the realm of the court to direct whether a witness must be made an accused or vice versa. I do not find reason to order a second further investigation in the case. But, if petitioner is aggrieved in that the two witnesses who allegedly committed offences are not implicated it is open to the petitioner if he is otherwise entitled to move against those persons as provided under law for redressel of his grievance. With the above observations, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks