Allowed

M.P.Muhammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2014Crl.MC/1663/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PP quashed a substandard report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and ordered a supplemental final report addressing investigation details and outcomes. The court held the submitted report insufficient and direct a proper inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A5 report set aside; Sub Inspector directed to make proper further investigation and submit a supplemental final report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the court below.

M.P.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1663 of 2014 ()

¶6

CC No.1419/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 792/2007 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

===================

¶8

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

M.P.MUHAMMED, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR, RESIDING AT MANIKOTH AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶11

SRI.K.V.SREEVINAYAKAN

¶12

SRI.K.M.HASHIR

¶13

SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S H O , HOSDURG-671121

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1663 of 2014 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

ANNEX A1:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 792/2007 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION
ANNEX A2:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 6374/2010 DTD 4/6/2010
ANNEX A3:-	THE TRUE COPY PETITION BEFORE JFCM I, HOSDURG UNDER SECTION 173(8)OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ANNEX A4:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE S I OF POLICE, HOSDURG BEFORE THE JFCM COURT I, HOSDURG IN CC 1419/2008
ANNEX A5:-	THE TRUE COPY FURTHER INVESTIGATION REPORT DTD NIL SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶23

NIL

¶24

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

¶25

¶26

P. UBAID, J.

¶27

Crl.M.C. No. 1663 Of 2014

¶28

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2014

¶29

The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in C.C. No. 1419/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Corut-I, Hosdurg. Further investigation under Section 173(8)Cr.P.C. was ordered by the trial court on an application filed by the defacto complainant. After making further investigation as directed by the court, the Sub Inspector of Police, Hosdurg submitted Annexure-5 report before the court, that he could not find anything contrary to the earlier findings and that investigation was properly conducted. The said Annexure-A5 report is sought to be quashed in this proceeding, and the complainant seeks a direction to the police for proper investigation.

¶30

On a perusal of the Annexure-A5 report, I find that this cannot have be accepted as a report of further investigation made under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. What is expected is a supplemental final report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., and if

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 1663/2014

¶33

anything new or additional could be collected during such investigation, the said final report must contain the details. If at all nothing could be collected further the report must contain, on what all points investigation was made, and what is the result of such investigation. In short, what is expected is a supplemental final report of investigation under Section 1783(8) Cr.P.C.

¶34

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A5 report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police is set aside, and the Sub Inspector is hereby directed to make a proper further investigation and submit supplemental report of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., in the court below.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶37

M.P.Muhammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Muhammed 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

Jacob Joseph @Shammy Vs Rajesh Divakaran

Palaniswamy Vs State of Kerala

Abbas Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahim Vs State of Kerala

Anikumar.N. Vs State of Kerala

Prema Vs Valsaraj