IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4861 of 2008() -------------------------------------- CR.NO.109/07 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION ------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JANAKI, W/O. KUNJAN, AGED 51, MENAKATH NEYTHALLOOR DESOM, EASWARAMANGALAM, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.J.DEVADANAM SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. THE DY. SUPERINTENDNENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI. 6. RADHA, W/O. RAJAN, KALATHU VALAPPIL, CHI, EASWARAMANGALAM, NAITHALLOOR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 7. RAJESH, S/O. RAJAN, DO....DO..... 8. RENJITH, S/O. DO.....DO...... 9. REMOD, S/O. DO......DO...... Kss ..2/- ..2... CRL.M.C.NO.4861/208 10. SHANOJ, S/O. VASU, PULIKAL, EASWARAMANGALM NAITHALLOOR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 11. ANOOSH, S/O. ARUMUGHAM, KARUVADI, EASWRAMANGALAM, NAITHALLOOR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 12. MANOJ, S/O. KUTTAN, DO....DO..... 13. VINOD, PULIKKAL, EASWARAMANGALM, NAITHALLOOR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4861 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the de facto complainant in crime No.109/07 of Ponnani police station. That crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 447,323 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. Investigation is complete and final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 143,147,447,354 and 323 read with 149 I.P.C. 2. According to the petitioner, she is aggrieved by the final report filed. The final report is not filed against one Vinod, whose name is mentioned in the F.I.R. According to the petitioner, offences under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as also Section 457 Cr.P.C have also been committed; but the final report does not make allegations of the accused having committed such offences. In these circumstances, the petitioner availed an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for a direction to the investigating officer to undertake a further investigation. The application was opposed and the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the said prayer. Crl.M.C.No.4861/08 2 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. According to the petitioner, no proper investigation has been conducted and there is need to direct the conduct of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate relevantly noted that a private complaint has already been filed and the said complaint is pending enquiry. The learned Magistrate, further noted that on the materials revealed in the investigation, the allegations raised in the final report - regarding sections of offences as well as accused is justified. It was, in these circumstances, that the learned Magistrate chose to take the view that no further investigation need be directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction has to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases and that too only in aid of justice. In the exceptional case, I take note of the crucial fact that the learned Magistrate has taken the view, which view does not at all appear to me to be irrational or perverse that there is no warrant for directing further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Nay, what is more important, is that the petitioner Crl.M.C.No.4861/08 3 has already moved the learned Magistrate with a private complaint and that complaint is pending enquiry also. In these circumstances, I come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no necessity to interfere with the impugned order. 4. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4861/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4861/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008