The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by an accused seeking re-investigation of a fatal accident case. Relying on precedent, the court held that re-investigation can only be initiated on the application of the police authority, not an accused person.
The petition for re-investigation of the case was dismissed.
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. NARAYANA PISHARADI
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.5154 OF 2019(D)
CC 47/2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TRIVANDRUM
CRIME NO.1310/2018 OF Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER:
ARAVIND.B.T., AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. T.G.BALKRISHNAN ACHARY, THEKKEPUTHUSSERI, T.C.8/377 (5), ALAPPURAM, THIRUMALA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 006
BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.RAHUL RAJ
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031
SMT V SREEJA-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-102019, THE COURT ON 15-10-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5154/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ************************ Crl.M.C.No.5154 of 2019
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2019
O R D E R
This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for issuing a direction to conduct re-investigation of the case which is registered as Crime No.1310/2018 of the Museum police station, by the Crime Branch wing of the police.
3
Crl.M.C.No.5154/2019
by the brother-in-law of the deceased who had not seen the accident. But, as per the chargesheet filed by the police, there
are three eye witnesses to the incident by name Vivek, Ranjith
Crl.M.C.No.5154/2019
4
and Sajeev. I have perused the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. The case diary contains the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses to the effect that it was the car KL-01-BH-3001 which hit on the scooter driven by the deceased. These witnesses have also stated to the police that they can identify the person who was driving the car which hit on the scooter.
Crl.M.C.No.5154/2019
5
particular manner (See Romila Thaper v. Union of India : AIR
2018 SC 4683) .
investigation of the case at the instance of the petitioner, who is the accused in the case, cannot be allowed. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(sd/-)
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr/15/10/2019
Crl.M.C.No.5154/2019
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 07.11.2018
ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 09.11.2018 ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 09.11.2018 ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 09.11.2018 ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.03.2019 ANNEXURE-VI TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 15.03.2019 ANNEXURE-VII TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.03.2019 ANNEXURE-VIII TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused seeking re-investigation by a different agency under Section 482 CrPC can succeed when the F.I.R. is based on witness statements and the accused must prove innocence during trial.
Why an accused cannot direct the investigating agency or demand a specific mode of investigation.
Whether the prayer for setting aside the chargesheet and ordering re-investigation is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CBI v. Rajesh GandhiRelied on¶36
CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi : AIR 1997 SC 93 · Who else cites this
Romila Thaper v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶39
Romila Thaper v. Union of India : AIR 2018 SC 4683 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
ARAVIND.B.T.
STATE OF KERALA
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
