The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a prayer for further investigation. The Court upheld the Magistrate's acceptance of the police closure report, finding no error, illegality, or glaring unreasonableness in the decision not to order further inquiry.
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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012/15TH ASHADHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 832 of 2012 (D)
IN CRMP.NO. 1564/2012 of J.M.F.C. - I, CHALAKUDY
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
SUDHEER
S/O. RAMAN, PARAMBIKKATTIL HOUSE, PERAMBRA VILLAGE URUMBANKUNNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.R.REENA SRI.M.V.ANANDAN
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE:
1. DILEEP
2. PRAKASAN, S/O. BHASKARAN
3. SHIBU, S/O. PARAMU
4. STATE OF KERALA
R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
=========================== CRL. R.P. NO. 832/2012
===========================
Dated this the 6th day of July 2012
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-02-2012 in Criminal M.P.No. 1564 of 2012 of the Court of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy dismissing the same. The petitioner filed the said protest compliant under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents 1 to 3 herein and praying for a direction to conduct further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. as the police filed a refer report considering the allegations of the revision petitioner/complainant as 'mistake of fact' pursuant to the investigation on the petition referred earlier under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report.
CRL. R.P. NO. 832/2012
# 2#
CRL. R.P. NO. 832/2012
# 3#
encashment on account of insufficiency of funds and thereupon he had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3 shared the common intention to cheat the complainant and also committed forgery of the visa. When the complaint was forwarded for investigation under Section 156 (3) the matter was investigated after registering a crime. The investigating officer thereafter filed a final report before the learned Magistrate which in this case is a refer report. It is in the said circumstances that the aforesaid protest petition alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 468 r/w. Section 34 IPC and also with a prayer to conduct further investigation.
SCC 359 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Magistrate could ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercising his power under
# 4#
CRL. R.P. NO. 832/2012
Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. In the decision reported in 2012 (3) KLT S.N. 8 (Case No. 10) SC the Hon'ble Apex Court held that before rejecting a prayer made in a closure report it is appropriate, though not imperative, for the Magistrate to narrate, why he had taken a decision different from the one sought for. In view of the said decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court there can be no doubt that the Magistrate is not bound the refer report. In a fit case in which the court finds that the records produced by the prosecution do not reveal any offence for want of effective investigation the proper course would be to order further investigation. In the case on hand, obviously, the learned Magistrate thought it only fit and proper to accept the refer report and further that in the circumstances obtained in the case no purpose would be served by directing a further investigation. The court found that the case was referred by the police mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the investigating officer stated that except the names of the so called persons who entrusted money with the complainant no further details were available to contact the said persons to get their statement regarding the alleged
# 5#
CRL. R.P. NO. 832/2012
transaction between the complainant and the accused in this case. Secondly, going by the report of the investigating officer the so called witness who allegedly witnessed the handing over of an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- by the complainant to the first accused on being questioned revealed that he was not present at the time of occurrence and he had only signed an agreement subsequently at the shop of the complainant and he did not witness the first accused signing the said agreement and the complainant handing over Rs. 9,50,000/-. The learned Magistrate has also satisfied on perusal of the complaint that there are no averments regarding the aforesaid two grounds in it. The order of the learned Magistrate cannot, in the circumstances, be interfered with as it is not suffering from any error, illegality and it also cannot be said to be glaringly unreasonable. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason at all to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate upon perusing the final report. The impugned order would reveal that the petition submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Magistrate upon valid reasons. The facts adverted herein before would
CRL. R.P. NO. 832/2012
# 6#
reveal that the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to order further investigation. Above all, it is evident from the order itself that its dismissal would not preclude the persons alleged to have been cheated to proceed against the accused upon better evidence.
This revision petition is liable to be fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)
/True Copy/
kvr/
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate was justified in accepting the police closure report and dismissing the revisioner's prayer for further investigation.
Whether the revision petition against the order rejecting the prayer for further investigation deserves interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meenakumari v. State of BiharReferred¶39
(2006) 4 SCC 359 · Who else cites this
Supreme Court decision on closure report narrationReferred¶39
2012 (3) KLT S.N. 8 (Case No. 10) SC
5 provisions across 2 enactments
SUDHEER
DILEEP
PRAKASAN
SHIBU
STATE OF KERALA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
