IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2007 of 2011 --------------------------------- [CRIME NO.1311/2011 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION] ............. PETITIONER: ------------------- SHEELA, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEARS, VALIPARAMBIL, ENGANDIYOOR KARA, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, C.B.C.I.D., ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO.2007/2011: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A-1: COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP.NO.1305/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A-2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1311/2011 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A-3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE I.G. OF POLICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2007 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of July, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.1311 of 2011 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. That case was registered, as learned counsel submits on 25.04.2011 on the allegation that accused defrauded petitioner by receiving `.20,00,000/- in connection with real estate transaction and offering to transfer about 8cents of land. Petitioner paid the amount and later, learned that there was no such property. Grievance of petitioner is that though the case is registered, the Station House Officer has not conducted any investigation and the culprits are freely moving about. Hence it is prayed that investigation may be handed over to the CBCID. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also who took notice for respondents. 2. Having heard learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor I am not inclined to think that the case is to be entrusted to the CBCID having regard to the enormous work that wing of the Kerala Police department now has. It is not as if in every case whenever the de facto complainant is not satisfied with the investigation or the agency, it should change hands. Crl.M.C.No.2007 of 2011 -: 2 :- Investigation must be conducted by the police having jurisdiction over the area. It is only when the Court is satisfied that in the ends of justice investigation should change hands that such an order is required. I am not inclined to think that any such situation has arisen in this case. But, if the case is registered, the investigating officer has to look into the matter and investigate the case as required by law. There is no reason why the investigating officer, in this case will not discharge that statutory function bestowed on him. I make it clear that if petitioner is aggrieved by any conduct of the officer investigating Crime No.1311 of 2011 he can move the superior police officer and if any such representation is made to the superior authorities, such authorities shall look into the matter and do the needful to redress the grievance of petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is prepared to prefer a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Kochi. It is directed that if any such complaint is received by that officer, he shall look into the complaint and do the needful as provided under law. With the above direction this criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-