IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4066 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.566/2008 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION) .............. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ M.K.SUNNY, S/O. KURIAN, NEDUMATTATHIL, PERUVA KARA, MULAMKULAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHN VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4066 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of February,2010 ORDER This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the second respondent to file a final report forthwith in Crime No.566/2008 of Vaikom Police Station after conducting proper investigation. The case of the petitioner is that eventhough Annexure A1 complaint filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the crime was registered, no proper investigation was conducted and petitioner had filed Annexure A2 petition before the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure showing the name of the details of the vehicle including the R.C owner and still Crl.M.C.4066/2009 2 proper investigation is not being conducted and therefore a direction is to be issued. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure A3 report submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom by the Investigating Officer on 22.9.2009 shows that though the details of the registered owner was procured, Investigating Officer could not find him as the addressee was not there and the concern is not now working. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no proper investigation. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that subsequent to the filing of the petition, the registered owner was questioned and it is revealed that he has sold the vehicle in 2003 itself and he could not give the further particulars. It is up to the Investigating Officer to trace out the vehicle as well as the person who was driving the vehicle on the date of the incident. The report does not show that any attempt was made to trace Crl.M.C.4066/2009 3 out the vehicle or to find out who is now using the vehicle. 5. In such circumstances, petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to conduct a proper investigation to be supervised by the concerned Circle Inspector of Police. The Investigating Officer must investigate the case properly. If there was no change of registration subsequently, the registered owner must be in a position to say who was using the vehicle on the date of the incident. It is up to the Investigating Officer to find out who was actually driving the vehicle on the date of the incident. The Investigating Officer shall submit reports showing the progress of the investigation once in three weeks before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006