In this criminal miscellaneous case, the petitioner complained of inadequate investigation and prayed for directions under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. The Court, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that the petitioner must approach the Magistrate first. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930
Crl.MC.No. 3334 of 2007()
C.C.NO.425/07 OF THE JFCM COURT, THIRUVALLA.
PETITIONER(S):
JYOTHI, C/O.SOSAMMA GEORGE, PANACKAMATTOM, KARANGALATHU, KADAPRA MANNAR P.O., THIRUVALLA-689 630.
BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS
RESPONDENT(S):
BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB.
ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R.5,6
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R. BASANT, J.
------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.3334 of 2007
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner is the de facto complainant/injured in Crime No.68/07 of the Pulikkeezh Police Station. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation conducted. No proper investigation has been conducted and that is his precise grievance. He submitted Ext.P5 application before the Director General of Police. The D.G.P. has not taken any decision in the matter. He prays for directions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C. No.3334 of 2007 -: 2 :-
inadequate, insufficient and unsatisfactory investigation conducted, must seek directions from the Magistrate concerned. Whether under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. or under Sec.173(8) Cr.P.C. the petitioner is entitled to approach the learned Magistrate and seek further direction. The decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala (2003 (2) KLT 929) clearly recognises the right of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate seeking directions under Sec.173(8) Cr.P.C.
Sd/(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
Crl.M.C. No.3334 of 2007 -: 3 :-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions for investigation pending a right to approach Magistrate under Sec. 156(3)/173(8) Cr.P.C. can be dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Followed¶30
(2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC))
Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of PoliceFollowed¶30
(2008 (1) KLT 945)
Shaji v. State of KeralaRelied on¶32
(2003 (2) KLT 929)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
JYOTHI
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, KOTTAYAM
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIKKEEZH
SALI JOHN
R. BASANT
Nan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
