IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17685 of 2010(Q) -------------------------- CC.70/2008 of J.M.F.C.,CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.SUBRAMANIAN, CURE CENTRE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHACKO PLAKKATTU, PLAKKATTU HOUSE, MAMMOOD P.O., CHANGANASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANASSERY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.M.NAZER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C). No.17685 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.924/2004 of Changanassery Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, claims himself to be a Doctor practicing Homeopathy and running his own clinic at Changanassery. At the instance of the first respondent herein, a complaint was lodged before the Changanassery Police for the offence of cheating, punishable under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. The case was registered by the Changanassery Police as Crime No.924/2004. After conclusion of the investigation, the Police filed a final report before the J.F.C.M, Changanassery and the Court took cognizance of the offence and registered the case as C.C.No.70/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. While so, as per Ext.P8 petition, the de facto complainant filed an application for further investigation before the Magistrate alleging that the investigation has not unearthed the commission of some other offences. The petitioner filed Ext.P9 objection to the said petition. The matter is under the WP(C). No.17685 of 2010 : 2 : consideration of the Magistrate. The petitioner has now approached this court with the present petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for a direction to the Magistrate to accept Ext.P9 objection and consider the same while passing orders on Ext.P8 petition. 2. While it may be true that the sword of Democles has been hanging over the head of the petitioner from the year 2008 onwards when the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process to him in C.C.No.70/08, the trial has not yet begun. After the decision of the Apex Court in Sakkiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008 (1) KLT (724) SC], it is for the Magistrate to monitor the investigation and pass appropriate orders in case he is satisfied that the investigation is not proceeding on proper lines. That probably persuaded the complainant to file Ext.P8 application for further investigation. Courts have held that the complainant and even the court Suo motu can invoke the power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C to order further investigation. 3. In the first place, the learned Magistrate has not WP(C). No.17685 of 2010 : 3 : passed any orders on Ext.P8 application. Even if the Magistrate entertains Ext.P8 application, the Magistrate cannot straight away direct the Police to incorporate the additional offences mentioned in Ext.P8 application. It is for the police to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary report before the Court regarding the out come of such further investigation. It is only on such supplementary report that the Court may or may not take cognizance of additional offences, if any, depending on the materials collected during the further investigation. The accused has no right to oppose the further investigation. His role comes only when he again summoned, after the Magistrate passes orders on the supplementary final report filed after the further investigation. This Writ Petition filed without any locus stands is accordingly dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb