The court emphasized that both initial and supplementary reports must be considered by the Magistrate before taking cognizance of charges against accused individuals.

ORDER

Petitioners are the accused nos. 2 to 5 in C.C.No.280/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC . The petitioners were implicated as accused in the case pursuant to a further investigation conducted in the matter by the Thrissur West Police Station in crime No.536/2009 of that station, after submission of the final report in the matter initially. Initially the case was registered only against the first accused who is the husband of the first respondent. Annexure A is the final report filed in crime No.536/2009 of Thrissur West Police Station. Pursuant to the further investigation conducted in the matter, the petitioners herein is now figured as accused in the case and Section 406 is also added to the charge. Annexure B is the further final report submitted by the Thrissur West Police in crime No.536/2009.

2. The prosecution case is that the marriage between the first accused in the case and the first respondent herein was solemnized on 09.01.2004 as per customary rites and while they were residing together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home of the first respondent, the accused allegedly inflicted matrimonial cruelty on the first respondent. It is the case of the prosecution that the gold ornaments and the Tata Indigo Car which the first respondent obtained as gift at the time of her marriage were given to the first accused for safe custody and it is the case of the first respondent that same was misappropriated by the first accused. As per the further final report as evident by Annexure B, there is an allegation that accused No.5 sent unnecessary messages to the phone of the first respondent. According to the petitioners who are accused Nos.2 to 5, even if the allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. Hence this Crl.M.C.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor .

4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate has not considered Annexure A final report while taking cognizance based on Annexure B. It is submitted that, in Annexure A final report and statement given by the witnesses before filing Annexure A final report, there is no allegation against the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, Annexure B is unsustainable in the light of Annexure A. The counsel for the petitioners also relied the judgment of the Apex Court inLukose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph & Ors. [2022 KHC 6253]. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners are to be raised before the trial court and these are matters of evidence.

5. This court considered the contention of the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. This court also perused Annexure A and B. Annexure A is the original final report in which there is no allegation against the petitioners. The husband of the first respondent is arrayed as the accused in Annexure A. Subsequently based on the further investigation, a supplementary report is filed as evident by Annexure B in which the petitioners were implicated as additional accused. If there is an initial report as well as a supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation, the Magistrate have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons name as accused in the supplementary report have committed the offence. This fact is considered by the Apex Court in Lukos Zachariah’s case (supra). The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

15. The Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate