IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2898 of 2011() ------------------------- (CRIME NO:1893/2009 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION-ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO:1, ERNAKULAM) PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED -------------------------- MAJESH MOHAN,AGED 37,S/O.MOHANDAS, KUTTYIL HOUSE,CHERUKULANJI PO,RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 018. 2. JOHN.K.DANIEL,15121,NORFOLK LN DAVIE , FLORIDA,33331,USA(ADDRESS IN INDIA,C/O.DR.JACOB DANIEL & ALEKUTTY JACOB 19/355.CATHEDRAL ROAD, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM (DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT), PIN 686 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERANAKULAM, PIN 682 031. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ Crl.MC.No. 2898 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & FIS IN CRIME NO.1893/2009 OF E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 THE PHOTO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE 2ND ACCUSED IN POLICE CUSTODY WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN CR.M.C 4578/2010 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE JJJ N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2898 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2011 O R D E R As per order dated 17.3.2011 in Crl.M.C.No.4578/2010 (Annexure 3), the 2nd accused therein filed an application to quash the F.I.R. There also the allegation was that, the case was registered in the year 2009 and that there are no specific allegations against the accused therein and so the F.I.R. should be quashed. This Court found no reason to interfere with the proceeding initiated against the petitioner therein. But, there was observation that the Investigating Officer should complete the investigation as early as possible. 2. This petition is now filed by the first accused where also almost identical contentions are raised. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of the fact that seven months had already elapsed after Crl.M.C. No.2898 of 2011 -: 2 :- Annexure 3 order, still the final report has not been filed by the Investigating Officer. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the first accused is absconding and that is the reason why the final report could not be filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the material witnesses have not questioned at all, whose names have been mentioned in the complaint. That is not something to be gone into at this stage. The petitioner who himself does not co-operate with the investigation by making himself available for being questioned cannot make a grievance that the final report has not been filed so far. Hence, I find no merit in this petition. It is only to be dismissed. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. But, however, the investigating officer will expedite the investigation. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt