Upon admitting a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking direction for further investigation due to alleged improper investigation by the agency, the Court held that the grievance should first be ventilated before the Magistrate Court where the matter is pending before passing appropriate orders.
none
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 849 of 2009(A)
----------------------------CC.493/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
C.RAVI, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, ATHININNAVEEDU, KADAVATTARAM, PIRAYUMMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 849 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009.
O R D E R
This petition is filed with a prayer to call for the entire records in C.C.493/05 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara and then direct the 3rd respondent to conduct a further investigation. The grievance of the petitioner who is the defacto complainant in the case is that the investigation has not been proper and the investigating agency has sided the accused and had only filed a final report u/s 324 IPC. He has got a grievance that the weapons used were not recovered, the witnesses were not questioned
and therefore it requires further investigation. This grievance can be ventilated before the Court where the matter is pending and that Court after consideration can pass appropriate orders. When there are materials for further investigation and thereafter also if the petitioner feels interest of justice has not been done there is always remedy for the party to come to this Court. Now without
Crl.M.C. 849 OF 2009 -:2:-
approaching the Magistrate Court for redressal of the grievance at this stage it may not be proper to direct another person to take over the investigation and do further investigation. So with opportunity to the petitioner to move the Magistrate Court for appropriate orders under the relevant provisions of law, this Crl.M.C. is closed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should directly order further investigation instead of directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate Court for redressal of grievances.
Whether the petition seeking further investigation is maintainable at this stage before approaching the court where the matter is pending.
C.Ravi
State of Kerala
Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
M.N. Krishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
