IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2044 of 2011() ---------------------------------------- CC.868/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /INFORMANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SASIDHARAN.P.K., AGED 50, S/O.MADHAVAN, PADINHARE KAITHAKAL VEEDU, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM AND DESOM, PUTHIYANGADI.P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): THE STATE AND THE INVESTIGATION AGENCY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CRIME NO. 1042/08, THE CENTRAL TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-01. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THE CENTRAL TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-01. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRRP. NO.2044/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.12.2008 IN CMP.5205/08 IN CITY TRAFFIC POLICE CRIME NO.1042/08 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV, KOZHIKODE. A2:- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5.10.10 IN CC. 868/10 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST CLASS JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE- IV, KOZHIKODE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2044 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August 2011 ORDER Revision is against the order dated 05-10-2010 in C.C No868/2010 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate - IV, Kozhikode, by which on the report of the investigating officer that the accused in the case is no more, the learned Magistrate treated the case as abated and closed the file, is challenged by the petitioner, who is the brother of the aforesaid accused proceeded with in the above case. 2. The above crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 209, 337 and 304 IPC involving a motor vehicle, allegedly, driven by the person named as the accused, the brother of the present accused. Including the aforesaid accused, another person was also injured in the occurrence. After conducting investigation of the crime, the police filed a report to refer the case as the accused named had succumbed to the injuries sustained in the occurrence. When such refer report was filed, the present petitioner moved a petition questioning the correctness of the investigation conducted in the case and also the merit of the report, contending that the vehicle was driven by another person and not by his brother, who, according to him, was hit by that vehicle. The learned Crl.R.P No.2044/2011 - 2 - Magistrate, after considering that application with reference to the refer report and other materials placed, by order dated 29-12-2008, directed for further investigation of the crime, declining to accept the report filed. Pursuant thereto, after conducting further investigation, again, the police filed a refer report stating that the vehicle was driven by none other than the person named as the accused earlier. Accepting that refer report, the impugned order was passed, admittedly, without notice to the petitioner, who had filed C.M.P No.5205/2008, on which further investigation was ordered in the case. Since the impugned order did not contain very many particulars required, to examine whether there was proper application of mind by the Magistrate in accepting the report, he was directed to furnish a report with reference to the facts and circumstances involved, and also whether notice had been given to the present petitioner. Perusing the report sent by the Magistrate, it is seen that the impugned order was passed without hearing the present petitioner on whose application further investigation was ordered in the case. When that be the case, the order, produced as Annexure A2, cannot be sustained. Setting aside the order, the Magistrate is directed to consider the refer report afresh after hearing Crl.R.P No.2044/2011 - 3 - the petitioner and also the prosecutor over the merit of that report. Petitioner is directed to mark his appearance before the Magistrate on 20-09-2011. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge