Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. What is under challenge is Annexure-A10. The petitioner has sought for a further investigation in the matter relating to S.T.No.2252 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ottapalam, on the ground that the 1st accused in the First Information Report has not been arraigned as accused in the Final Report. Presently, the 1st accused in the First Information Report is not an accused in S.T.No.2252 of 2012.

3. According to the petitioner, she along with her sons are the co-owners in respect of the property as is evident from Annexure-A11 release deed. In such case, she can also be treated as a victim of offence.

4. Relying on the decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another [(1985) 2 SCC 537], the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner also can be treated as a victim. In the decision in Bhagwant Singh (Supra) it was held:

"The injured person or any relative of the deceased who is not an informant, though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report,