IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4813 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.3486/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): 6TH ACCUSED -------------------------- M.CHANDRAPPA,S/O.MARIYAPPA, PRASHANTH NAGAR,NEAR G.G.SAMUDAYA BHAVAN, CHITRADURGA-01. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SRI.EBY AUGUSTINE SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND CW 19 & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ANILA,D/O.JOSE,KALARICKAL HOUSE, CHAKKANAKKAM PARA,PAYYAVOOR,THALIPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. JISHA.V,S/O.VARGHESE,CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, PANNITHADOM ROAD,ANTHIYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMED ANZARI FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4813 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by accused No.6 in C.C.No.3486 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 5 collected money from CWs 3 to 24 promising to arrange admission for nursing course in recognised colleges at Bangalore during 2004 but, they arranged admission for the candidates in un- recognized institutions and thereby committed offences as above stated. Petitioner would say that while the witnesses questioned by the Investigating Officer referred to the promise of the accused to provide admission in colleges in and around Bangalore and, they referred to admission being given to them in Sree Laxmi Venketaswara School of Nursing (SLV) at Sarjapur, in Bangalore City, the institution run by petitioner though, it carries the very same name as above stated is a recognized institution as revealed by Annexures-A3 to A5 and is situated about 200 kms. away from Bangalore city, at Chitradurga. It is contended by the learned counsel that statement of CW19 to the Investigating Officer is clear that what the prosecution refers is the un-recognised institution run by one R.B.Reddy at Sarjapur in Bangalore city and not to the petitioner or his institution at Chitradurga. Petitioner contends that there is no material on record to show that petitioner is connected with the institution at Sarjapur or, Crl.M.C.No.4813/2010 2 the alleged promise said to be given by accused Nos.1 to 5 to CWs 3 to 24. It is contended that the Investigating Agency has not conducted proper investigation into the alleged involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident. On the above grounds petitioner wanted to quash Annexures-A1 and A2, first information report and final report and the proceedings in C.C.No.3486 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam to the extent it concerned petitioner to be quashed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has highlighted the above contentions and requested that petitioner may not be made to stand trial for no reason whatsoever and without any iota of material against him to show his involvement in the alleged incident. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that though statement of CW19 refers to Sree Laxmi Venketaswara School of Nursing at Sarjapur owned by R.B.Reddy, the Investigating Officer after investigation has given the name and address of petitioner in the case diary as the person referred to by CW19 in her statement. Crl.M.C.No.4813/2010 3 4. True, CW19 has referred to the Sree Laxmi Venketaswara School of Nursing at Sarjapur owned by one R.B.Reddy and there is no reference as such to the petitioner either by name or by reference to the institution belonging to him and situated at Chitradurga. But, it is not possible for me to say at this stage that the allegations against petitioner are either ill-founded or, there is no material to say that petitioner is not involved in the alleged incident. But it appeared that the Investigating Officer has not conducted proper investigation into the alleged involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident. In Annexure- A2, final report the Investigating Officer says that for want of time, he could not search the institution run by petitioner. I have also gone through the case diary which was made available by the learned Public Prosecutor for perusal wherefrom it is revealed that (whatever be the reason thereof) the Investigating Officer has not conducted proper investigation into the alleged involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident. In such a situation, I consider that the proper course is to direct the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation into the alleged involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident, under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit further report in the matter as the investigation reveals. At this stage, request of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him, in the circumstances cannot be accepted. Crl.M.C.No.4813/2010 4 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the case is posted for trial. In view of the order I propose to pass, trial of the case shall stand in abeyance until the further investigation is over. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation into the alleged involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident and submit report as the investigation reveals under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigating Officer shall complete the further investigation as above directed within three months from this day. Until submission of such report, trial of C.C.No.3486 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam will stand in abeyance. Warrant of arrest issued against petitioner will stand in abeyance until submission of further report after further investigation by the Investigating Officer. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks