IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2069 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME 195 OF 2008 OF KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------ 1. TOMY K.JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KADAUUMKAL PUTHENPURA, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. K.K.JOSE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KURIAN, KADAVUMAKAL, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. EMIL PAUL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.K.K.PAUL, KADAVUMKAL, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. BABY JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, ARAMJANI PUTHENPURA, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. P.V.DEVASIA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, PULLAMBRA PARAYIL, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.D.ROBIN SRI.R.ANUP RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.195/2008 KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2069 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the petitioners, they are local inhabitants and they were disturbed by the annoyance caused by certain persons who were disturbing the peace of the locality. They were alertly waiting for apprehending such miscreants. On the date in question, a person was seen running away from one of the houses. He was naked. He was caught. He was handed over to the police. He was later released from the police station, it is alleged. 2. On the complaint of such person, the police have now registered a crime and it is in that crime, the petitioners are facing allegations. It is alleged in that crime that the petitioners under mere suspicion caught hold of him, showered abusive and insulting words against him, disrobed him and assaulted him. Ultimately the police came and saved him, it is alleged. That person alleges in the crime that the petitioners have been guilty Crl.M.C No.2069 of 2008 2 of various offences against him. He had suffered injuries. Investigation is in progress. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste. 3. The petitioners have now come to this Court with a prayer that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued to freeze further investigation in the matter. What is the reason ? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted Annexure-3 petition before the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam and the said petition has been sent to the Dy.S.P for enquiry. The prayer is that until such enquiry by the Dy.S.P is over, the Investigating Officer may be directed not to proceed further in the matter. 4. Allegations and counter allegations have been raised about an admitted incident. Which version is true can be ascertained and the controversy can be resolved only by conducting a proper investigation. No specific allegations are seen raised of any mala fides against the Investigating Officer who is now conducting the investigation. Of course, there is a grievance raised before the superior authority of the need to conduct a proper and efficient investigation. I am of the opinion that no direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C need be issued in the matter now. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate and Crl.M.C No.2069 of 2008 3 come to appropriate conclusions. Of course, the Superintendent of Police, as the the superior official, has the obligation under Section 36 Cr.P.C to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted. The intervention by him by calling for a report from the Dy.S.P may be beneficial and is intended only to discharge his duty under Section 36 Cr.P.C to ensure the conduct of a proper investigation. Undoubtedly it is his duty to ensure that proper investigation is conducted. But to achieve that result, I am of opinion that it is not necessary at all to freeze the investigation. I will certainly assume that while the enquiry is going on, the final report shall not be permitted to be filed and the Superintendent of Police in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 36 Cr.P.C shall ensure that enquiry, if any, which has commenced, is completed and thereafter only the final report is filed. At the present stage and with the available inputs, it is not necessary to issue any direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to freeze the investigation by the Investigating Officer who is presently at the job. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above specific observations. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. In view of Section 18 Crl.M.C No.2069 of 2008 4 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the petitioners are unable to seek anticipatory bail. The petitioners apprehend that if they surrender before the learned Magistrate, the offence being triable exclusively by a court of session, their application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In these circumstances, they pray that directions may be issued. 7. This Court has time and again repeated that the mere fact that an offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session will not justify abdication of powers by the learned Magistrates under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate is bound to consider the application for bail on merits and pass appropriate orders. This position has been made crystal clear in the following decisions. i) Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280], ii) Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452], iii) Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.)42] and iv) P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.) 250]. Crl.M.C No.2069 of 2008 5 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-