JUDGMENT

Petitioner in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is State Bank of India, formerly State Bank of Travancore, Pathanamthitta branch, represented by its Manager who is the defacto complainant in Crime No. 1260/2010 of Pathanamthitta police station registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That crime was registered on 20.11.2010 alleging offence against one Jisha K. Joy. Going by the statement of facts, on 18.11.2010 the said Jisha K. Joy had pledged three bangles weighing 45.5 grams claiming to be genuine gold and borrowed an amount of Rs.55,000/- from the bank. The loan was sanctioned after the gold was tested by the appraiser Nadesan Asari. Thus the amount was disbursed to the said person. In the evening, when the pledged ornaments were taken to the locker, the petitioner felt some suspicion about the purity of the gold, so that on the next day morning the appraiser was called to the bank and was asked to conduct an acid test. When acid test was conducted, it came out that it is spurious gold, gold coated ornaments. When verified, it came out that the said Jisha K. Joy had previously pledged 'gold ornaments' on eleven occasions and all ornaments were tested and all the pledged items were found to be spurious gold and on that basis, information was furnished to the police and Crime No.1260/2010 was registered. After investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the said person, which has been taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta as C.C.50/2011. On enquiry, the petitioner found out that the investigation was conducted in an illegal and irregular manner. Thus the petitioner moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking to conduct further investigation in the case. However, by Ext.P3 order dt. 11.09.2013 the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved a Crl.M.C. before this Court. But relying on the decision in Amruthabhai Sambhubhai Patel v. Sambhubhai Kanthibhai Patel [2017 (1) KLT 707] on the premise that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that further investigation can be conducted only on the application of the Investigating Officer, the Crl.M.C. was dismissed leaving open the right of the petitioner to move a Writ Petition, if so advised. Thus he has moved this Writ Petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, or order or direction commanding and compelling the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondents to consider Ext.P5 representation within a time frame and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to order further investigation in crime 1260/2010 of Pathanamthitta police station, since the final report filed before the Court is in violation of Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The petitioner has enlisted numerous reasons justifying further investigation. According to him, even though twelve instances of cheating were committed by the said Jisha K. Joy within a period of twelve months, entire incidents have been brought within a single charge sheet, which is in violation of Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. Secondly, the said appraiser is also responsible for committing the crime. There are reasons to believe that the appraiser had committed criminal conspiracy and he ought to have been arrayed as co-accused in the final report. Thirdly, it was pointed out that the Assistant Manager, who had sanctioned all the above loans, was neither questioned nor cited as a witness for the prosecution, the previous statement of the defacto complainant was not formed part of the records, the Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to unearth how the amounts were utilised by the culprit nor collected materials regarding this aspect. Thus he filed Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent Superintendent of Police seeking further investigation under Section

173(8) of the Cr.P.C. but it has not been co