A Magistrate cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet against an accused when the police have determined no case is made out, as this infringes on the police's exclusive investigative authority.

ORDER

This Crl.M.C is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.363/2014 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Idukki. Annexure-II is the final report filed against the petitioner. The offence alleged is under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The crime was registered on the basis of the direction given by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Idukki in Annexure-III judgment. The petitioner was cited as a prosecution witness in CC NO.2/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Idukki, which arises from Crime No.58/2009. It was a prosecution initiated against one Shijo alleging offences punishable under Sections 297, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code . According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein with an intention to screen the real accused who was driving the bus involved in the above case, destroyed documentary evidence to prove the name of the driver, who drove the vehicle at the time of accident and thereby committed the offence under Section 201 of the . The learned Magistrate as per Annexure-III directed to register a case against the petitioner and investigate and file a final report against him. Based on the same, 2^nd respondent registered Annexure-I First Information Statement and thereafter, filed Annexure-II final report. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in issuing a direction to file a chargesheet against the petitioner. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor.

4. This Court perused Annexure-III judgment in which there was a direction issued to register a case against the petitioner. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment.

" 16. I find that Pw22, the owner of the bus service is a totally unreliable person. He had testified before court that the bus was driven by one lype. Signature in Ext.C2(c) statement of Pw22 convinces me that the signature in Ext.C1 is that of Pw22. Pw22 appears to have destroyed the trip register of the bus, to screen the real accused. Pw22 cannot destroy the trip registers as Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules mandates the permit holder of the bus to preserve it and to produce when called for by the Magistrate. Pw22 had stated in Ext.C2(c) report that the trip register was destroyed when he shifted the office of the bus service. But, Ext.C1 is evident that on 16.9.2009 (date of Ext.C1) also the bus service was functioning at S-6, Revenue Tower, Kothamangalam, i.e., the shifted office. The accident in this case was on 3.9.2009. In this circumstance, it is reasonable to believe that the statement that the trip register was destroyed at the time of shifting of the office is not true. Therefore, exercising Section 190 (1)(c) of CrPC, I direct, in this judgment itself, the Station House Officer, Idukki to register case against Pw22 under Section 201 , IPC and to investigate the case and file final report as per law.

17. Coming to the case on hand, due to the incapacity of the prosecution to prove who drove the bus, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused committed the crime.

18. Point no.4: In the result, in the light of the reasons stated above, I find that the accused is not guilty of the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code . He is therefore set at liberty. Bail bonds executed shall however continue for the purpose of Section 437A, CrPC.

19. Interim custody of the vehicles given at the time of the investigation of the case is made absolute. But, as per the report of the Regional Transport Officer and by Ext.C2(c), the bus had been sold with no intimation to the court. It is now a school bus. The reconveyance bond for the bus executed for a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- before the investigating officer is therefore another farce.

20. Direction is issued u/s 190(1)(c) of CrPC to SHO, Idukki to register