IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4854 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.837/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHARON K. SEBASTIAN, AGED 20, KIZHEKKETHENGOLIL, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, FINAL YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENT OF SAINTS GITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PATHUMUTTAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKODITHANAM POLICE STATION, THRIKKODITHANAM, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. RAKESH CHANDRAN, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, PUTHUKUTTIL HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4854 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment as the 2nd accused in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 326 I.P.C. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. Altogether there are four accused persons. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. His father is the 1st accused. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R itself. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. Though his name appears in the F.I.R registered after some delay, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not available at the scene at all. He was attending to his vocation at a place 30 Kms away from the scene of the crime. The petitioner could not have been present at the scene of the crime at all. He has been falsely implicated with oblique motives. In these circumstances, it is prayed that cognizance taken may be set aside. In the alternative, it is prayed that an appropriate direction may be issued to conduct a further investigation. Crl.M.C.No.4854/08 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. At the moment and with the available inputs, it is not possible for this court to accept the plea of alibi and to quash this prosecution against the petitioner. I do not intend to express any final opinion on the questions raised on facts. Suffice it to say that, at the moment and with the available inputs, it is not possible for this court to come to a conclusion that the allegations raised against the petitioner are so grossly incorrect as to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to stake his claim for premature termination at the appropriate stage before the trial court - either by claiming discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C or if that attempt is not successful, to claim acquittal at later stages. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that there may be a direction to get a proper further investigation conducted. In response to the specific query by this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not filed any application under Section 173(8) Crl.M.C.No.4854/08 3 Cr.P.C. After the decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala [2003(2) KLT 929], it is trite that the petitioner/accused who has a grievance that a proper investigation has not been conducted has the option to move the learned Magistrate for the conduct of a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. That prayer if made, will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and in accordance with law. 4. This petition is hence dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4854/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4854/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008