IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 601 of 2011() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.5/2011 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. JAYAKRISHNAN.J.R, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN ILAYIDAM, JAYALAYAM, VAYALAR.P.O, CHERTHALA. 2. RAJAGOPAL.D, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, KADAVIL PARAMBIL, VAYALAR.P.O, CHERTHALA. 3. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. RAMARAJAN NAIR, PULAPPALLIYIL HOUSE, VAYALAR.P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 5/2011 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA) 2. VINEETH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. VENU GOPAL, MADHAVATH VEEDU, VAYALAR, CHERTHALA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.601 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused 4 to 6 in Crime No.5 of 2011 of Cherthala Police Station originally registered against accused 1 to 3 for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323 and 324 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”), later altered by Annexure-III, report of the Investigating Officer to offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w. Sec.149 of the IPC as well and impleading petitioners also as accused 4 to 6 as per Annexure-IV, report dated 04.02.2011 allegedly on the information given by the second respondent/de facto complainant in the course of investigation. Petitioner/accused 4 to 6 challenge action taken against them and request to quash Annexure-IV, report above mentioned. Learned counsel submits that petitioners/accused 4 to 6 are close acquaintance of the second respondent who could have easily identified petitioners if they were involved in the incident but at the time of giving first information statement to the police second respondent was specific that only three persons, accused 1 to 3 (mentioned by their name) were involved in the incident. Based Crl.M.C.No.601 of 2011 -: 2 :- on that a case was registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323 and 324 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC. To sabotage the case the Sub Inspector has falsely implicated petitioners in the incident allegedly on the information given by the second respondent. It is pointed out that second respondent, against the said conduct of the Investigating Officer filed Annexure-V, representation to the Director General of Police with a copy to Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and Dy. Superintendent of Police, Cherthala stating that petitioners are not involved in the incident and that attempt of the Sub Inspector is to scuttle the success of the prosecution against accused 1 to 3. Learned counsel pointed out that apart from Annexure-V, complaint respondent has also filed an affidavit in this Court stating that petitioners are not involved in the incident. Hence learned counsel requested that Annexure-IV, report may be set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor in response contended that at no point of time the second respondent had given any information to the investigating agency, petitioners are not involved in the incident and that in the course of investigation the Sub Inspector learned that petitioners are also involved in the incident. It is based on that, Annexures-III and IV, reports are filed before the learned Crl.M.C.No.601 of 2011 -: 3 :- Magistrate. 2. On hearing learned counsel for petitioners, it would appear that second respondent himself has filed an application for further/reinvestigation as the case may be and that petition is pending. Having regard to the circumstances stated, it is open to the learned Magistrate to dispose of that petition as provided under law. 3. Petitioners have a grievance against the Sub Inspector who investigated the case and submitted Annexures-III and IV, reports. The second respondent also is not happy with the investigation. Though it does not appear to me that Annexures- III and IV, reports are to be quashed, it is appropriate that investigation/further investigation shall be conducted by an officer senior in rank to the Sub Inspector. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Further investigation of the case shall be conducted by an officer senior in rank to the Sub Inspector, Cherthala, (ii) I make it clear that it is open to the Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cherthala to whom Annexure-V, Crl.M.C.No.601 of 2011 -: 4 :- complaint or its copy have been given to pass necessary orders in the matter of investigation. (iii) If any petition is pending before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala for further investigation, learned Magistrate shall consider the application having regard to the circumstances stated above and pass appropriate orders in that regard. (iv) The Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha shall issue orders handing over the investigation of the case to an officer senior in rank to the Sub Inspector, Cherthala within a week of receipt of copy of this order which shall be made available to that officer by the petitioners. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-