IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1448 of 2011() ------------------------- CP.153/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONERS/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABU THOMAS, CHARUVILPADINJATTETHIL, KUNNIDAMKUZHY, NARANGANAM VILLAGE, CHERUKOL, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. VARGHESE JOHN, PALLIYATHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, NARANGANAM VILLAGE, CHERUKOL, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SECRTARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 586. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 586. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERRY - 689 586. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31. R1 TO R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1448 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.P.No.153 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323 and 404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure-2, final report submitted by the Circle Inspector, Kozhencherry in Crime No.355 of 2005 of Aranmula Police Station and to direct further investigation to be conducted. Learned counsel contends that there is absolutely no material to implicate petitioners in the alleged incident, apart from alleging the motive for the first petitioner towards the deceased, no material witness has been questioned by the Investigating Officer and no material also has been collected to show involvement of petitioners in the alleged incident. It is also submitted that even the theory of last seen together is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is submitted that in the course of investigation by the Circle Inspector, learning that the investigation is directed against petitioners with malafide intention, the father of first petitioner submitted a representation to the Government which was got enquired by the Police and that the enquiry revealed that petitioners are not involved in the alleged incident. Accordingly the Additional Chief Secretary has sent a letter dated 24.06.2008 to the father of first petitioner stating that such Crl.MC No.1448/2011 2 enquiry revealed that petitioners are not involved in the alleged incident. It is prayed that in the circumstances a further investigation may be ordered. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the representation made by the father of first petitioner to the Government, the Crime Branch was directed to conduct an enquiry and before the Crime Branch, petitioners gave statements exonerating themselves and implicating the third accused alone in the incident. In that situation the District Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Pathanamthitta to look into the matter, that Officer conducted an enquiry and concurred with the findings of the Investigating Officer (that petitioners are also involved). The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed Annexure-2, final report before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta which is now pending committal. 3. I have gone through Annexure-1, letter of the Additional Chief Secretary referred to above. There, reference is made to the representation made by the father of first petitioner and it is stated that on enquiry being conducted on that representation, it was revealed that of the persons implicated as accused in the murder of Georgekutty, only, third accused is responsible and that in respect of the matter, direction has been given to the District Superintendent of Police to conduct detailed investigation. 4. It is not clear how the Additional Chief Secretary could issue such a Crl.MC No.1448/2011 3 letter entering into a finding as to the involvement of any of the accused involved in the matter when the matter was under investigation by a Police Officer who is otherwise competent to reach appropriate conclusion and the matter is before court. However, I am not going into the propriety of the Additional Chief Secretary issuing any such letter. I need only observe that it was for the Investigating Officer to reach appropriate conclusions in the course of investigation and if final report is filed it is for the court trying the case to decide who are guilty and who are not guilty. 5. In the present case even Annexure-1, letter would show that the Government had directed the District Superintendent of Police to conduct a detailed investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the District Superintendent of Police directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Pathanamthitta to conduct such enquiry and that Officer concurred with the finding of the Circle Inspector, Kozhenchery. It is also to be seen that while Annexure-1, letter is dated 24.06.2008, Annexure-2, final report is dated 31.08.2009. In these circumstances, based on Annexure-1, I do not think it necessary or proper to direct further investigation of the case. 6. The question whether there are materials on record to implicate petitioners and frame charge against them are matters to be decided by the appropriate court at the appropriate stage. I do not find it necessary to make any observation regarding that. Crl.MC No.1448/2011 4 Resultantly without prejudice to other right if any of petitioners before the appropriate court, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks