IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32003 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.518/2004 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION] ........... PETITIONER: ------------------- CHANDRAN @ THAMBI, AGED 36, S/O.SIVANANDAN, S.S.BHAVAN, MURUTHAN KODE, CHEMBOOR DESOM, KEEZHAROOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA DIVISION. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA CIRCLE. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.32003 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 24th November, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner, the de facto complainant in C.C.395/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Neyyattinkara filed Crl.M.P.7236/2010 for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. By Ext.P6 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to direct respondent 4 or 5 to conduct further investigation in crime No.518/2004 of Vellarada police station. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel Wpc 32003/10 2 appearing for the petitioner is that there was no proper investigation and petitioner was not aware of the final report submitted before the court and was aware of the case only when summons was received for giving evidence and it is found that only the persons who are close to the accused are shown as witnesses and PW1 has already turned hostile and in such circumstances, direction is to be issued for further investigation. 4. Learned counsel further argued that even though petitioner has named one Shaji, an eye witness in the FI statement, he is not made an by the prosecution and in such circumstances, a fair investigation is to be conducted and necessary direction is to be issued. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that learned Magistrate has Wpc 32003/10 3 considered entire facts in Ext.P6 order and there is no necessity to order further investigation as sought for. 6. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P6 order, I do not find it necessary, in the interest of justice to order further investigation as sought for. Evidently when PW1 turned hostile, petitioner has a feeling that the other witnesses may not support the prosecution case. It is then further investigation sought for stating that there are other eye witnesses who are prepared to support him. But that is not a ground to order further investigation. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.