IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 27457 of 2010(Q) --------------------------------------- R.C.NO. 54/2010 of J.M.F.C.,IRINJALAKUDA CRIME NO.998/09 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.C.SHIBU, S/O.LATE CHANDRAN, AGED,36 YEARS, CHATHENGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KUZHIKKATTUSSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVA SHANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, THRISSUR, PIN 680 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. 4. P.R. ANANDAN, S/O.RAJAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KANNIKULANGARA DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 004. 5. K.A.AKBAR, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOZHIKKADA DESOM, P.O.PULLUT, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 004. 6. MUHAMMADALI, S/O.SAITHUKUNJI, ELLUMPARMMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KOOLIMUTTUM, KODUNGALLUR.PIN- 680 002. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27457 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the de facto complainant in Crime No.998 of 2009 of Irinjalakuda Police Station. That case was registered on the strength of Ext.P5, complaint made by the petitioner to the Sub Inspector, Irinjalakuda. Based on that complaint the Sub Inspector registered Crime No.998 of 2009 (Ext.P6 is the FIR) for offences punishable under Secs.120B, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner approached this Court stating that respondent Nos.1 and 2 colluded and submitted a refer report before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakkuda stating that the dispute is of civil nature. It is contended that learned Magistrate posted the case on 18.05.2008 without giving notice or summons to the petitioner. Hence it is prayed that Ext.P7, refer report may be quashed and further investigation of the case may be ordered. 2. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner at the time of hearing, I called for a report from learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakkuda through Registrar (Judicial). The Registrar (Judicial) has reported that on W.P(C).No.27457 of 2010 -: 2 :- contacting learned Magistrate, it is reported that refer report (RC No.75 of 2010) was filed before the learned Magistrate on 19.05.2010. According to the learned Magistrate the police had served notice of refer report by registered post on petitioner. Learned Magistrate accepted refer report on 24.05.2010 but without issuing notice to the petitioner from the said Court. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Since refer report has already been filed by the investigating agency, appropriate forum for petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance is the Court of learned Magistrate. This Court cannot quash the refer report or direct further investigation. 4. It is seen that learned Magistrate has accepted the refer report on 24.05.2010 without giving notice to the petitioner. It is true that learned Magistrate has reported that the police had served notice of refer report on petitioner but, that does not suffice the requirement of law. It has been consistently held in the decisions in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr. (1985 (2) SCC 537), Vijayan Vs. Fauziya Hassan (1997(1) KLT 55), Mohanraj Vs. Rajeev (1998(2) KLT 1057) and Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2004(7) SCC 768) that when a refer W.P(C).No.27457 of 2010 -: 3 :- report is filed, de facto complainant/informant is entitled to a notice from Court before the Magistrate decides to accept the refer report and close the proceeding. In Mohanraj Vs. Rajeev (supra) this Court has specifically held that notice issued by the investigating officer is not a substitute for the notice to be issued from the Court. It follows that learned Magistrate went wrong in accepting the refer report dated 19.05.2010 without giving notice to the petitioner/de facto complainant from the said Court. Resultantly the order accepting Ext.P7, refer report is set aside and learned Magistrate is directed to issue notice to the petitioner on the refer report. On receipt of such notice it is open to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and seek redressal of his grievance as law provides. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-