IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2531 of 2011() -------------------------------------------- CMP.4714/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O. JANARDHANAN, THANNIARTHAL VEEDU, MOTTAMOODU, NARUVAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3, 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMPANNOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. 3. THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.T.R. RAJESH. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2531 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.355/2007 OF THE KARAMANA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE DY.S.P. CRIMES WITH THE WITNESSES AND THE STATEMENT. ANNEXURE 3 : COPY OF THE CMP NO.4714 OF 2008 OF THE JFMC-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE 4 : COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN CMP NO.4714/2008 OF THE JFCM-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE 5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.7.2011 IN CMP NO.4714/2008 OF THE JFCM-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.2531 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October 2011 ORDER The revision is by one of the accused as against whom a final report has been filed by the investigating officer indicting him of various offences including one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation of the crime questioning his implication as an accused in the case, he had moved applications before various authorities, superior police officials and also the Home Minister, and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, inquiry on such petitions was conducted. On his implication as an accused in the crime he had also moved before the magistrate a petition, Annexure A3, requesting the magistrate to call for the records of the investigation and conduct an inquiry. That petition, after filing of the final report, was again pressed into service before the magistrate. The learned magistrate, looking into the materials tendered by the investigating agency, the final report and the documents accompanying thereof, being satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner with respect to the offences imputed under the report, closed further proceedings in his petition. Producing a copy of the order sheet of the magistrate in the case, Annexure A4, the petitioner (10th accused) assails the propriety, Crl. R.P No.2531 OF 2011 - 2 - legality and correctness of the aforesaid order passed by the magistrate. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Adverting to some decisions of the apex court, the learned counsel submitted that the magistrate has a duty to see that the investigation of a crime is conducted fairly in consonance with the settled principles of law and justice. When a complaint has been raised by the person proceeded as an accused, even at the stage of investigation filing a petition before the magistrate, before whom the FIR of the crime has been lodged, and materials also tendered that there is ground to hold that the implication of the said petitioner as an accused in the crime was unfair, according to the counsel, the magistrate has to inquire into such complaint with reference to the report filed by the investigating agency and form an independent opinion as to whether any further investigation of the crime is required. 3. Having regard to the statutory mandates covered by Section 207 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the limited scope and ambit within which the magistrate before whom a final report is filed as against the accused requiring his trial for offences exclusively by a Sessions court, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the counsel that the magistrate has to conduct an inquiry over his complaint impeaching his implication as an accused in the crime. Crl. R.P No.2531 OF 2011 - 3 - The magistrate is expected to look into the final report and the documents produced by the investigating agency with such report, and if it is a case which is to be exclusively tried by a Sessions court, after summoning of the accused, he has to commit the case to the Court of Session. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge