IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3263 of 2004() ------------------------- CC.873/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- V.N.REJI, AGED 34, S/O. NARAYANANKUTTY, VALLAYIL HOUSE, CHITRAPUZHA, IRUMPANAM P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.14245/04 IN CRL.M.C.3263/04 DISMISSED. 20-6-2008. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C. No.3263 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 20th June, 2008. ORDER The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.873/1999 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner now approached before this Court with a prayer to quash the additional charge sheet in Annexure A4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the de facto complainant and himself were partners of Suvarna Chitty funds and the allegation against the petitioner in the case is that on 25-5-1999, the petitioner took the pass book and cheque book of the firm and forged the signature of the de facto complainant, who is the other partner, in cheque No.337439 and collected Rs.5,500/- from the joint account maintained in the name of the firm. The police, after completing the investigation, filed a final report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. in crime No.40/99 of CRL.M.C.3263/04 -:2:- Ambalamedu police station. Annexure A2 is the final report. Upon Annexure A2, the court took cognizance and instituted C.C.No.873/1999 for the offence under section 420 of IPC. Pursuant to the summons issued from the court, the petitioner appeared before the court below and he was released on bail and subsequently a formal charge was framed under section 420 to which he pleaded not guilty which resulted in the further trial. Accordingly, CW2 was examined as PW-1 and the case was posted to 11-9-2002 for the examination of the de facto complainant. According to the petitioner, on that day, the learned Magistrate issued Annexure A3 order staying the trial of the case on the ground that the police had undertaken a further investigation in the matter. The further case of the petitioner is that, accordingly, after further investigation, the police had filed additional charge sheet,viz., Annexure A4 before the court below. It is the above additional charge sheet sought to be quashed in this proceedings. CRL.M.C.3263/04 -:3:- 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the trial court is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the counsel, the police had already conducted an investigation and filed Annexure A2 final report and there was no necessity for conducting a further investigation. Even if the circumstances warranted to have a further investigation, the same shall be conducted only with prior and appropriate sanction from the court below. In support of the above contention, the petitioner very much placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramlal Narang v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 1791) and in Mariam Rasheeda v. State of Kerala (1998 (1) KLT 835); State of Kerala v. Sreedharan (1993 (2) KLT 490); Vijayakumar v. Kamarudhin (1999(1) KLT 184); State v. Gopakumar (1998(1) KLT 924) and also the decision reported in Lonappan Nambadan v. Dy. S.P. (2002(3) KLT 213). Thus, the learned counsel submitted CRL.M.C.3263/04 -:4:- that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate allowing the police for further investigation is absolutely illegal and the additional report is liable to be quashed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the prosecution. Annexure A3 was passed by the learned Magistrate on 11-9-2002 by which the request for stay of further proceedings was granted until further orders and the case was adjourned awaiting further investigation report. Though the above order was passed on 11.9.2002, the petitioner approached this court only during the month of November, 2004, after the expiry of two years from the date of Annexure A3 order and that too, after the filing of additional report. It is relevant to note that in this case, the trial is already commenced and further investigation was allowed during the midst of the trial and thereafter the police had also filed further report. Therefore, even if there is any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner, it is not proper on the part of this Court in interfering with the trial at this stage. CRL.M.C.3263/04 -:5:- 6. Going by the authorities, it can be seen that there is no bar for further investigation in a case where final report was already filed under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The judicial pronouncement further shows that what is required is that the court shall be kept informed of the further investigation undertaken by the police. In this case as evidenced by Annexure A3 order, a report was already filed before the court below stating that the further investigation was ordered by the City Police Commissioner and requested for stay of further proceedings in the case until further investigation report is filed. I am of the view that the requirement as declared by the judicial pronouncement is satisfied in this case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the further report filed by the police in crime No.40/99 of Ambalamedu police station and in C.C.No.873/1999 of the court below. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that before passing Annexure A3 order, the petitioner was not heard before staying the further proceedings. However, CRL.M.C.3263/04 -:6:- the petitioner did not approach this Court immediately after Annexue A3 order was passed but he preferred this Crl.M.C. only after filing the additional report. However, I am constrained to observe that if the further investigation was conducted beyond the scope of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and if any materials or evidence produced which are prejudicial to the interest of the accused/petitioner as it is against the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the same can be brought to the notice of the trial court upon which the trial court will take appropriate decision on merit of those issues. In the light of the above discussion, there is no merit in this Crl.M.C, and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but subject to the above observation. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.M.C.3263/04 -:7:- kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order CRL.M.C.3263/04 -:8:- Dated: