IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 475 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.2274/2010 OF THIS COURT CRIME NO.188/2010 OF NATUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- REMADEVI, W/O.RONALD DANIAL, NATURE WING, NARANGAKUNDU, CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MANIKANDAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, MANIKANDANILAYAM, PALODE PO MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583. 2. RAJESH, S/O.APPUKUTTY GUPTAN, KUPPONDAIYIL HOUSE, PALODE PO MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, NATTUKAL, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 571. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PALAKKAD 678 001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH, PALAKKAD 678 001. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM,KOCHI 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.475 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.188 of 2010 of Nattukal police station. On a private complaint preferred by her, learned Magistrate directed investigation by the police. Police registered the above case for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate granted bail to respondent No.1 on 24.01.2011. This petition is filed challenging Annexure-H, order refusing to direct the Investigating Officer to arrest respondent Nos.1 and 2 and hand over investigation of the case to an Officer higher in rank to respondent No.4 (Sub Inspector who is now investigating the case). 2. The Mother of the de facto complainant aged 80 years committed suicide regarding which the complaint was preferred. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 moved this Court with B.A. No.2274 of 2010 for anticipatory bail. This Court disposed of that application by Annexure-D, order directing the Investigating Officer to release them in case of arrest for a period of one month from date of the order (17.08.2010) subject to conditions which included that CRL.M.C. No.475 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall produce the alleged suicide note (Annexure-B) before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of order after getting it back from court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Annexure-E, application in this Court for extension of the period of one month granted as per Annexure-D, order and that request was allowed by this Court as per Annexure- F, order dated January 14, 2011. On the expiry of period of one month mentioned in Annexure-D, order petitioner filed Annexure- G, application before learned Magistrate to direct the Investigating Officer cause arrest of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not produce the (alleged) suicide note (Annexure-B) before the Investigating Officer within the time granted by this Court as per Annexure-D, order and hence the anticipatory bail granted as per Annexure-D, order stood dismissed. In the meantime learned Magistrate granted bail to respondent No.1 on 24.01.2011. Request for a direction to arrest respondent Nos.1 and 2 was turned down by the learned Magistrate as per Annexure-H, order dated 11.01.2011. That order is under challenge in this petition. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that the investigation conducted by respondent No.4 is not in the proper line and that it may be handed over to a Senior Officer. Annexure- D, order is specific that in case of non-compliance with the CRL.M.C. No.475 of 2011 -: 3 :- condition mentioned in the said order within the time specified, application for anticipatory bail would stood stand dismissed in which case respondent No.4 was bound to arrest respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Magistrate was bound to issue direction to that effect. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 4. It is not as if learned Magistrate is required to direct arrest of accused for the purpose of investigation. It is for the Investigating Officer to decide whether for the purpose of investigation arrest of the accused is required and if so, to do so as provided under law. There is therefore nothing illegal in the learned Magistrate refusing to direct arrest of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. So far as non-compliance of condition in Annexure-D, order to produce the (alleged) suicide note within 15 days of the order is concerned, it is true that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not produce the said letter before the Investigating Officer within the said time. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 though beyond the time stipulated have produced the said letter before the Investigating Officer and it was sent to the handwriting expert for opinion. Assuming that the order granting anticipatory bail stood dismissed by non-compliance with the direction to produce the suicide note within the time CRL.M.C. No.475 of 2011 -: 4 :- specified in Annexure-D, order I must bear in mind that by a subsequent order dated 24.01.2011 learned Magistrate has granted bail to respondent No.1. Hence even if it is assumed that the order granting anticipatory bail stood vacated by non- compliance of the condition mentioned therein, that will not affect validity of the order granting bail to respondent No.1 on 24.01.2011. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with Annexure-H, order. 6. So far as the request to hand over investigation of the case to a Senior Officer is concerned grievance is that the Investigating Officer has not looked into Annexure-I, complaint preferred by petitioner before the Superintendent of Police. It is sufficient to issue necessary direction in that regard. The Investigating Officer shall look into the complaint of petitioner contained in Annexure-I and investigate in that line also. Change of investigation at this stage does not appear to me as necessary. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed with the above direction to the Investigating Officer. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv