Petitioner moved for further investigation and implicant of two witnesses who filed separate FIRs using the Petitioner's signed cheques, alleging they should be accused. The Court held that directing witness array as accused is within the Magistrate's domain and declined to order a second investigation.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 882 of 2011(E) -----------------------------------[CC.NO.480/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR]
PETITIONER/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------------------
JYOTHISH.K.P., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, KADAN VEETTIL HOUSE, PAPPINISSERI AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN.
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:
----------------------------------------------------
1. SARATH KUMAR, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT `SARATH', ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, KIZHUTHALL, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 007.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.882 of 2011 -------------------------------------Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.314 of 2007 of Kannur Town Police Station and C.C.No.480 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur. Complaint was initially filed against respondent No.1 alleging that petitioner had borrowed .18 lakhs from respondent No.1 on various occasions and all those occasions respondent No.1 obtained signed blank cheques and stamp papers from petitioner and his wife. Petitioner repaid .80 lakhs to respondent No.1 but the documents were not returned to him. Respondent No.1, making use of the said signed blank cheques and stamp papers filed cases against petitioner's wife through other persons. The Police investigated the case and filed final report against respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 18A (6A) of the Money Lenders Act. Unsatisfied with the investigation and in so far as other persons allegedly involved in the case are not implicated as accused, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.4744 of 2008 before the learned Magistrate for further investigation. Learned Magistrate allowed that application and further investigation was ordered. After further investigation the Police submitted report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) arraying two more persons as witnesses for the prosecution. Grievance of the
Crl.MC No.882/2011
2
petitioner is that those persons also should have been arrayed as accused since it is making use of signed blank cheques given to respondent No.1 that those witnesses filed cases against petitioner's wife under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prayer in this petition is to direct a further investigation of the case by the Crime Branch or the Special Investigation Team headed by an efficient Officer. Learned counsel has submitted that even in the complaint, petitioner had given serial number of the cheques respondent No.1 (allegedly) had obtained from petitioner's wife and which the two witnesses now additionally incorporated by the Investigating Agency have made use of to implicate the wife of petitioner in cases for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.
Crl.MC No.882/2011
3
With the above observations, this petition is closed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct further investigation or implicate additional witnesses as accused when the Magistrate has already ordered further investigation.
Whether persons who filed complaints based on the petitioner's signed cheques should be implicated as accused in the main criminal case.
Whether a second further investigation is warranted despite the existing further investigation report filed by the police.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jyothish.K.P.
S Sarath Kumar
State of Kerala
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
