Remanded

Shanoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jan 2008Crl.MC/228/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves the accused petitioner seeking to quash impugned orders passed by the Magistrate rejecting a supplementary investigation report due to unsatisfactory answers explaining initial suspicions of insurance fraud. TheHigh Court set aside the lower court order and directed a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need to address prior doubts about the petit

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned Annexure F order and remanded the matter for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. within one month.

Shanoj Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 228 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

S.T. NO. 3946/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, WADAKKANCHERRY

¶8

PETITIONER: ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

SHANOJ, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, P & T QUARTERS, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

ABOOBAKKER SIDDIQUE, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, VILIYAKATH HOUSE, VETTIKKATTIRI DESOM, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶19

========================== CRL.M.C. No.228 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2008.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T. No. 3946/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, seeks to quash Annexure E and F orders passed by the Magistrate on 03.02.2006 and 02.06.2006 respectively.

¶22

The allegations in Crime No. 272/2003 of Cheruthuruthy Police Station against the petition/accused is that on 14.12.2003 at 2.30 p.m the petitioner drove his motorbike in a rash and negligent manner along the Wadakkanchery-Cheruthuruthy Road from south to north as a result of which the motorbike went and hit against an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. K.R.B 523 driven by the 2^nd respondent herein from north to south along the eastern side of the road resulting in the pillion rider of the petitioner's motorbike sustaining injuries. The First Information Statement was given by one Subhash styling himself as the rider of the motorbike. The original accused in the case was the 2^nd respondent herein who was the driver of the Ambassador car. But, subsequently Annexure C final report was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police showing the petitioner as the

¶23

CRL. M.C. NO. 228/2008 : 2 :

¶24

accused alleging negligence on his part and showing him as the rider of the motorbike. Thereafter, at the behest of the petitioner herein, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Kunnamkulam ordered a further investigation of the case to be conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Chelakkara. After seeking formal permission of the court, the Circle Inspector of Police conducted a further investigation and filed Annexure D final report showing the 2^nd respondent herein as the accused and shifting the petitioner from the array of the accused to the position of a prosecution witness. As per Annexure E order dated 03.02.2006, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the reasons for arriving at the conclusion which the Circle Inspector of Police did under Annexure D final report were not convincing and observed as follows:-

¶25

“On a prima facie evaluation of the entire materials on record, I am reasoned to hold that the subsequent investigation is not properly done. The whole exercise appears to be suspicious. In my considered view, in order to rule out the possibility that Sanoj (the petitioner herein) was removed from the accused array and included as a witness for enabling him to get the insurance claim, a thorough further investigation is necessary.”

¶26

The Circle Inspector of Police thereafter submitted a report on identical terms as Annexure D report. It is thereafter that the Magistrate passed Annexure F order dated 02.06.2006 holding that the

¶27

CRL. M.C. NO. 228/2008 : 3 :

¶28

further investigation is not satisfactory, since the findings reached by the learned Magistrate as per Annexure E order dated 03.02.2006 have not been addressed by the Investigating Officer. However, instead of directing the Circle Inspector of Police to file a further report after addressing the aspects referred to in Annexure E order, the learned Magistrate decided to ignore Annexue F further report and to proceed further in the case. That is why the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the Magistrate was of the view that the Circle Inspector had not addressed himself with regard to the conclusion reached by the Magistrate in Annexure E order dated 03.02.2006, the Circle Inspector of Police could have been directed to submit a further report specifically dealing with those conclusions reached by the Magistrate. All that was required to be done was to see whether there was any attempt on the part of the petitioner Shanoj to get himself exonerated from the array of accused so as to enable him to claim any insurance amount. Accordingly, I set aside Annexure F order and the further report referred to therein. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chelakkara shall conduct a further investigation and submit a further report under

¶30

CRL. M.C. NO. 228/2008 : 4 :

¶31

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. That report shall also deal with the suspicion entertained by the Magistrate in his order dated 03.02.2006 in Annexure E order. Such further report shall be filed within one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Communicate a copy of this order to the Circle Inspector of Police, Chelakkara. The Magistrate shall not proceed with the case until the submission of the supplementary final report by the Circle Inspector of Police, Chelakkara in accordance with the directions hereinabove contained.

¶32

This Crl. M.C is disposed of as above.

¶33

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶34

¶35

CRL. M.C. NO. 228/2008 : 5 :

Shanoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajesh Vs State of Kerala & Another

Dr.Lekha Vs State of Kerala

Asif Iqbal @ Asif Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and Another

Rajamony Vs State