IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 846 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.498/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/CW 1: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RINGU CHERIAN, S/O.LATE M.C.CHERIAN, MOOZHICKAL HOUSE, MANNAMARUTHI, RANNY. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI.SAJJU.S. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNY. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNY. 4. SHIBU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, VEEPRATHU HOUSE, CHELLAKADU MURI, CHELLAKADU, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE. 5. SATHEESHAN, S/O.NANU, VASANTHINILAYAM HOUSE, CHERUKUTHUNI MURI, CHERUKUTHUNI, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE. 6. JOSY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, POOTTAMBALATHU HOUSE, CHELLAKADU MURI, CHELLAKADU, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE. 7. AJU.T.SAMUEL, S/O.SAMUEL, MULAKAZHAYIL HOUSE, CHELLAKADU MURI, CHELLAKADU, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE. 8. RITHOASH MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, THENGUMTHOTTATHIL VEEDU, PAZHAVANGADI MURI, PAZHAVANGADI, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.846 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.498 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ranni requesting to quash Annexure- A4, order dated 13.01.2011 on Crl.M.P.No. 5322 of 2010. That was a petition to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 2. Petitioner preferred a complaint against respondents 4 to 8 and one Praveen and Vikraman. Based on the private complaint respondent No.2 registered a case as Crime No.358 of 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). After investigation the Police submitted a final report against respondents 4 to 8. Petitioner, aggrieved as Praveen and Vikraman were not included in the array of accused filed Crl.M.P.No.5322 of 2010 for further investigation. That petition was dismissed by Annexure-A4, order. Learned counsel submitted that there is glaring infirmity and deviation in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and that there is no justification in excluding Praveen and Vikraman from the array of accused. In the circumstances further Crl.MC No.846/2011 2 investigation ought to have been ordered. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no sufficient material to direct further investigation and hence there is no reason to interfere with Annexure-A4, order. 3. Learned Magistrate has observed that so far as allegations against the Investigating Officer is concerned, Crl.M.P.No.5322 of 2010 only contained some general allegations and no particular material is pointed out requiring further investigation. Learned Magistrate has observed that Annexure-A3, petition (Crl.M.P.No.5322 of 2010) contained only bald allegations which are not sufficient to substantiate the allegations. 4. The Supreme Court has time and again held that power to order further investigation must be exercised sparingly and with utmost care and circumspection. It is not as if whenever somebody thinks that investigation is not proper or when all those who aimed at are not implicated as accused that further investigation could be ordered. Investigation is within the realm of Police. Interference by the court should be limited and under exceptional circumstances. Having regard to these aspects and the circumstances pointed out by the learned Magistrate I do not find reason to interfere with Annexure-A4, order. If petitioner is aggrieved as Praveen and Vikraman are not impleaded, he is at liberty to take recourse to other remedies available to him under the Code subject ofcourse to the law of limitation if any applicable in the matter. Crl.MC No.846/2011 3 With the above observations, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks