IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 765 of 2008(E) ---------------------------- CC.213/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 367/2006 of MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED -------------------------- STANY ABRAHAM, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, ST.GEORGE FARM, SAMPYADI, UDANE POST, PUTHUR TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI SMT.SINDHU MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 765 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in crime No. 367 of 2006 of Manjeshwar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 381 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod as C.C. No. 213 of 2007, seeks to quash Annexure-A4 charge sheet and all further proceedings before the Magistrate. 2. According to the petitioner, the original complaint lodged by the de facto complainant not only arrayed the petitioner as the 2nd accused but also made allegations against accused Nos. 1 and 3 besides alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 381 IPC. But the police after investigation deleted accused Nos. 1 and 3 and placing the petitioner alone for trial after substituting Section 381 IPC with Section 457 IPC. No reasons have been given by the Investigating Agency as to why they have deleted accused Nos. 1 and 3 from the array of the accused. Crl.M.C.No. 765/2008 2 3. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has a grievance that there has been no proper investigation in the case, the petitioner can move the trial court under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and in the event of that court being convinced about the grievance of the petitioner, that court can order further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv