IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1350 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.237 OF 2009 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION .................. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1& 2: -------------------------------------------------- 1. P.V. RAGHAVAN ACHARI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE PALLIKKARA GOVINDAN, PALLIKKARA HOUSE, PUTHIYAKANDAM, ANJANOOR GRAMAM, ANANDASHRAMAM P.O., KASARGOD DIST. 2. P.V. ASHOKAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN ACHARI, PALLIKKARA HOUSE, PUTHIYAKANDAM, ANJANOOR GRAMAM, ANANDASHRAMAM P.O., KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN MR.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ 1. PUTHIYAKANDAM GUNAVATHI ACTION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, SMT. E. SEELAVATHI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, THAYATH HOUSE, PUTHIYAKANDAM, POST ANANTHASHRAMAM, MAVUNGAL, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DIST., PIN- 671 531. 2. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1350 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.2148/2009 IN CRL.MC.NO.1350/2009 DISMISSED 19/06/2009. SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1350 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of June,2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in Crime 237/2009 of Hosdurg Police Station being investigated on the direction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure on Annexure V complaint. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the police has already investigated the case after registering Crime 542/2006 under section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure and a final report was submitted to the effect that it is a case of suicide and though the action committee had filed W.P(C) 31020/2007 before this court, under Annexure IV judgment this court found no reason to interfere with the final report and though opportunity was left open to approach the competent Magistrate, learned Magistrate was not justified in directing a further investigation without considering Annexure III final report. It was contended that Annexure V would amount to a second complaint which is not maintainable in law Crl.M.C.1350/2009 2 and in such circumstance, Annexure VII F.I.R is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. When it was pointed out that there was no investigation in Crime 542/2006 as there was only an inquiry as provided under section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure and no final report as provided under sub section (2) of Section 173 was submitted and therefore Annexure V complaint cannot be treated as a second complaint, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that when the report is filed after investigation that it is a case of suicide, learned Magistrate should not have forwarded the complaint for investigation and therefore the F.I.R is to be quashed. 4. The report submitted after inquiry under section 174 was not before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. But Sub Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance on the report under section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure or to direct further investigation. Hence based on that report the order directing investigation cannot be challenged. 5. An identical question was considered by the Apex Court in Premkumar v. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT SN 78) Crl.M.C.1350/2009 3 and it was held that the registration of an F.I.R under section 174 based on the information of unnatural death in “stricto sensu” cannot be construed to be an F.I.R within the meaning of the provisions of Section 154 and therefore the second F.I.R registered based on the complaint is maintainable. In the light of the decision, submission of the petitioner that Annexure VII F.I.R based on Annexure V complaint is to be treated as a second F.I.R. cannot be accepted. I find no reason to quash the complaint as it is for the Police to investigate and find out whether the death of deceased Gunavathy is suicide or homicide and if homicide whether it was committed by the petitioners or somebodyelse. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- --------------------- ORDER 24TH JUNE,2009