Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
THONAKKARA VEETTIL PHILIP – Appellant
Versus
KURUMATTATHIL THOMAS – Respondent
OP(Crl.) 482 2021
Jurisdiction - Criminal Proceedings - CC No. 34/2014 - The court addressed the procedural authority and the rights of the defacto complainant to submit additional information for further investigation post-charge framing.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to stay proceedings in a criminal case after the trial court dismissed an application for further investigation, citing lack of jurisdiction post-charge framing.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitioner to submit additional information to the investigating officer, ruling that the officer could seek the court's permission for further investigation if warranted by the new information provided.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the defacto complainant's application for further investigation and the implications of charge framing on such applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the defacto complainant retains the right to provide additional information for further investigation, and the investigating officer must consider such submissions if legally appropriate.
Final Decision: The O.P.(Crl.) is disposed of, allowing the petitioner to submit additional materials for further investigation.
JUDGMENT
This O.P.(Crl.) is filed with following prayers :
“to stay all further proceedings in CC No. 34/2014 on the file of JFCM Court, Payyannur till the disposal of the above original petition.” [SIC]
2. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur in an application filed by the petitioner who is the defacto complainant in CC 347/2014 for further investigation. The trial court dismissed that application mainly for the reason that inVinubai Haribai Malavya & Ors v. State of Gujarat [ AIR 2019 SC 5233 ], the court below has no jurisdiction to consider that application after framing charge. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing wrong in defacto complainant submitting the additional information if any to the investigating officer and if the investigating officer is convinced, the investigating officer can approach the court below with appropriate application in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioner can be allowed to submit an application narrating the additional materials for ordering further investigation and if such application is received, there can be a direction to the investigating officer to consider the same, in accordance with law and intimate the result to the petitioner.
Therefore, this O.P.(Crl.) is disposed of with the following directions :
1) The petitioner is free to submit the petition narrating the additional materials for ordering further investigation within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order,.
2) Once such an application is received, the investigating officer will consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and intimate the same to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the petition.
3) All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this case are left open.
4) The trial in CC No. 347/2014 shall be kept in abeyance till the final decision is taken by the investigating officer as directed above.
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
