Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SUNITHA – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 694/2022
Investigation - Criminal Proceedings - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 173(8) - Summary: This case discusses the provisions under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning further investigations, highlighting the court's authority to direct such investigations and the necessity of credible material to warrant further inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a direction for further investigation into a prior complaint alleging serious criminal offenses. They requested this after being dissatisfied with the initial investigation outcomes, particularly the omission of a severe charge in the final report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a further investigation had already been conducted resulting in no new charges and that the petitioners failed to present any material to substantiate their claims for additional inquiry.
Issues: Whether the court should direct a further investigation in the absence of new evidence or credible material supporting the allegations made by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it could not interfere in the final report of the investigation as no credible evidence was presented to justify a further inquiry into the allegations.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners seek for a direction to conduct a further investigation into Crime No.1429/2014 of the Mulavukadu Police Station, Ernakulam.
2. The petitioners had approached the learned Magistrate seeking further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. The said petition filed as C.M.P. No.856/2022 in C.C. No.492/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Ernakulam was dismissed by Ext.P4 order dated 18.03.2022. This petition under Section 482 has been filed, seeking for a further investigation into the aforementioned crime.
3. Petitioners are husband and wife. The 2nd petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.1429/2014 of Mulavukadu Police Station, Ernakulam. A complaint was filed by the 2nd petitioner on 20.11.2014, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 324 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the defacto complainant, on 28.10.2014, the accused had asked the 2nd petitioner to reach the Vallarpadam container terminal at Ernakulam and while he was waiting inside the car, the accused opened the rear door and attempted to kill him by strangulating him with a cable and thereby committed the offences as alleged.
4. Pursuant to the complaint, the FIR was lodged and after investigation, the final report was filed, wherein, only the offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC alone were incorporated.
Section 307 of the IPC was omitted in the final report.
5. Aggrieved by the omission of Section 307 of the IPC, petitioners filed complaints before the Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, District Police Chief, Ernakulam and the Inspector General of Police as per Exts.P5, P6 and P7 respectively. According to the petitioners, despite the said representations, the police have not conducted any proper investigation and therefore they approached the learned Magistrate and thereafter they have approached this Court aggrieved by the refusal to order further investigation.
6. A statement has been filed by the respondents, pointing out that after filing of the final report, on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioners, the District Police Chief, Kochi City ordered a further investigation. As many as 14 further witnesses were examined. However, at the conclusion of the further investigation, no additional sections were added not were any sections deleted and the further final report was submitted to the court on 30.06.2017. Cognizance has been taken as C.C. No.492/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Ernakulam, which is pending consideration.
7. I have heard Sri.Paul K.Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Smt.Sreeja.V, the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. Though pursuant to petitioners request, a further investigation was carried out, the said investigation did not reveal any additional offences committed by the accused. The statement filed by the respondents reveal that during the course of further investigation 14 additional witnesses were examined and despite detailed investigation, no further offences were detected. No materials have been produced by the petitioners also, at least before this Court, to inspire credibility to the allegations now raised by the petitioners.
9. I am of the view that since the investigating officer has already concluded in his final report, the nature of offences for which the accused must answer, this Court cannot interfere to direct a further investigation. As mentioned earlier, no material has also been produced by the petitioners to warrant such a direction.
In the above circumstances, I find no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20.11.2014.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1429/2014 OF CENTRAL POLICE S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
