IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 164 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.7121/2008 OF KOCHI CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRINCY JOHN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. JOHN, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM, IDUKKI NOW RESIDING AT NAVAL BASE FLAT, DAWSON VIHAR TYPE 3-C/4, THAIKOODAM, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INPSECTOR OF POLICE, EDAPALLY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.164 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner has received Annexure D notice issued to him by the Sub Inspector of Police, City Traffic East police station directing him to appear before the learned J.F.C.M-I, Ernakulam on 20/4/2009. On getting the notice, the petitioner has come to this court complaining about such notice issued to him. 2. As Annexure D was confusing, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that it is true that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in crime No.7121/2008 of City Traffic Police Station, Ernakulam. The F.I.R in that crime was registered on 20/09/2008. In the F.I.R, the doctor who treated the deceased is the informant. It is recorded that no other person was available to give details about the question. Crime is registered under the caption 'death due to motor accident'. Against the column to enter the name of the accused, it is mentioned “not known”. Investigation was Crl.M.C.No.164/09 2 completed and final report was ultimately filed before the learned Magistrate. In such final report, the police, on the basis of the investigation conducted by them have alleged that the petitioner is the accused in the case. According to the police, the petitioner, along with a pillion rider was proceeding on a motor cycle. The deceased was proceeding in front, riding another two wheeler. The petitioner's vehicle allegedly attempted to overtake the two wheeler in which the deceased was proceeding. This has resulted in contact between the vehicle of the petitioner with the vehicle in which the deceased was proceeding. The deceased was thrown off. He fell under a truck. The wheel of the truck ran over him and the deceased suffered injuries to which he succumbed. The petitioner and the pillion rider also fell and suffered injuries. Investigation was undertaken. In the course of investigation, the investigator has come to the conclusion that the negligence of the petitioner was the cause of the accident. Accordingly, final report has been filed. 3. The petitioner has come to this court with this petition with the prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to issue directions. According to Crl.M.C.No.164/09 3 the petitioner, no proper investigation has been conducted. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and the pillion rider have suffered injuries and were available in the hospital on that night. But their statements were not made use of for registering an F.I.R. In fact, the statement of the petitioner and the pillion rider were recorded at the hospital on that night/next morning. Without conducting any proper investigation, final report has been filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C against the petitioner. The charges may be quashed. Further investigation may be directed, it is prayed. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. At the moment and with the available inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that there is any justification or necessity to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to issue any specific directions. The learned Public Prosecutor has now clarified that the petitioner is required to appear before the learned Magistrate as an accused in a 304A I.P.C case on the basis of the final report in crime No.7121/2008 of City Traffic police station. Petitioner must enter appearance before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. After the records are Crl.M.C.No.164/09 4 made available to him, if the petitioner feels that any further investigation deserves to be conducted, it is for the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate with appropriate application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C as enabled by the decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala [2003(2) KLT 929]. If such an application is filed, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must pass appropriate orders. I find no reason at this juncture to quash the investigation conducted or the proceedings initiated on the basis of the final report submitted by the police. 5. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed but with the above specific observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.164/09 5 Crl.M.C.No.164/09 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008