IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 5055 OF 2010() --------------------------------------- CC.142/2010 OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------ MANI.N., AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, NARAYANEEYAM, PALKULANGARA, PETTAH.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 024. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR SRI.V.V.MITHUN RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 5060 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. Nos.5055 & 5060 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Prayer in these petitions is for reinvestigation into two crime cases registered by the Vanchiyoor Police one, on the information given by the petitioner and the other against him. Crl. M.C. No.5055 of 2010 concerned the final report in Crime No.528 of 2009. That case is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram as C.C. No.142 of 2010. That case originated on the information given by the petitioner that on 23.10.2009 at about 5.30 p.m. at Muthuvilakath house belonging to him, four accused persons trespassed into that house and attacked him with an iron rod. ThePolice on the information given by petitioner registered the case for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of the investigation Investigating Officer submitted a report on the strength of an additional statement allegedly given by the petitioner (during the course of investigation) that accused 3 and 4 are not involved in the incident. The reason for that statement is also mentioned in CRL.M.C. Nos.5055 & 5060 of 2010 -: 2 :- the said report. Thereafter final report is submitted by the police alleging that accused 1 and 2 are involved in the said incident. 2. In Crime No.529 of 2009 the police filed final report against petitioner and others for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. That case was registered on the information given by C.W.1 in that case alleging that petitioner and others attacked him with stone following a property dispute. Petitioner contends in these petitions that the final reports submitted by the police in both the cases are malicious in that petitioner and others have been falsely implicated in Crime No.529 of 2009 while accused 3 and 4 have been purposely omitted from the final report in Crime No.528 of 2009. In the circumstances a reinvestigation of the case is required, it is contended. Learned counsel for petitioner addressed arguments in that line. Learned counsel has referred me to the wound certificate of petitioner in Crime No.528 of 2009 where it is stated that four persons attacked petitioner with iron rod. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. In both the cases final reports have been filed and the matter is pending trial before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. According to learned counsel the mahazar for scene of occurrence allegedly prepared in Crime No.528 of 2009 is erroneous. CRL.M.C. Nos.5055 & 5060 of 2010 -: 3 :- 4. It would appear that these cases relate to the same incident. It may not be possible to submit final reports to the satisfaction of all persons involved. The Police after investigation submitted final reports in both the cases. Additional statement given by the petitioner on the strength of which accused 3 and 4 were deleted from Crime No.528 of 2009 admittedly is not a statement signed by the petitioner. If petitioner is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of accused 3 and 4 in Crime No.528 of 2009 he has the remedy of filing a private complaint in respect of the same incident implicating accused 3 and 4 also as provided under law and as the law permits. A reinvestigation cannot be ordered for the mere asking and because petitioner is not happy with the final reports. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor I am not persuaded to think that a reinvestigation is required. Hence without prejudice to other rights if any available to the petitioner these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv