Dismissed

Khaleel v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/512/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged an order directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on the ground that it was initiated at the instance of the victim (defacto complainant) rather than the court. The court held that such irregularity is cured once the supplementary report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed; the impugned order directing further investigation was set in stone.

Khaleel Vs the State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.512 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 1396/2008 DATED 06-02-2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 KHALEEL

¶9

S/O. KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, VALIYAKATHU HOUSE, PANANTHARA, PUNNAUYURKULAM.

¶10

2 NAZARULLA THANGAL

¶11

S/O. POOKOYA THANGAL, BUKARAYIL, KEEZHPATT, CHERUKUNNEL VEEDU, PUTHIYANGADI.

¶12

3 SHAMEER

¶13

S/O. KHADER, PATTATHEYIL HOUSE, PERIYAMBALAM, PUNNAYURKULAM.

¶14

4 ABDUL MAJEED S/O. SAIDALIKUTTY, THARAMMEL PUTHEN PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, ARUTHAMALA DESOM, KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5 JAFER

¶16

S/O. MUHAMMED, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUNAVAYA.

¶17

MALAPPURAM.

¶18

6 RAJEEB

¶19

S/O. KADAR, CHEMBAN VEEDU, NEAR THIRUVANTHRA BHADARU MOSQUE, MANATHALA.

¶20

7 LIRAR

¶21

S/O. ALI BEERANTEKATH VEEDU, ANDATHODE BEACH ROAD, PUNNAYURKULAM.

¶22

8 RAFEEQUE S/O. SAINUDHEEN, PUZHAMKANDATH VEEDU, PERUMPADAPPU DESOM, ERAMANGALAM.

¶23

9 MAJEED

¶24

S/O MOOSA, ERINJIKKAL VEEDU, KIZHAKKE CHERAI, PUNNAYURKULAM.

¶25

BY ADVS.

¶26

SRI.P.PRIJITH

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2014

¶28

¶29

SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶30

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶31

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶32

2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHAVAKKAD CIRCLE, CHAVAKKAD, PIN-680506.

¶33

3 PUNNOTHU VEETTIL RAJU S/O. KUNHIMON, PERIYAMBALAM DESOM, PONNIYURKULAM ANDATHATHODE.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-679564.

¶34

R1 & R2 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.BHASKARAN NAIR R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2014

ORDER

The order dated 6/2/2014 in Crl.M.P.No.189/2014 in

¶41

S.C.No.1396/2008 of Addl.Sessions Court, Thrissur

¶42

directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is under challenge on the ground that it is at

¶43

the instance of defacto complainant further

¶44

investigation was ordered and that the order issued at

¶45

the instance of the victim, the defacto complainant

¶46

would be a gross violation of the mandate under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

¶47

In pursuance of the order, further

¶48

investigation was conducted and a supplementary report was submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. The

¶49

question whether it was initiated at the instance of

¶50

defacto complainant or based on the order of Sessions Judge would pale into insignificance once the report

¶51

was submitted in compliance of requirement under

¶52

Section 173(8)Cr.P.C. and it would form part of the

¶53

earlier report submitted under Section 173(2)Cr.P.C.

¶54

Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2014 4

¶55

A further investigation under Section 173(8)Cr.P.C. is

¶56

really the domain of the investigating officer, but that does not mean that the court or the party concerned should remain silent spectators ignoring detection of a new fact or omission to trace out a material fact in existence, subsequent to the filing of final report under Section 173(2)Cr.P.C. It is well

¶57

within the jurisdiction of the court to order further investigation on revelation of any such fact either at the instance of defacto complainant or the accused as the case may be. What is relevant to set the law in motion under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is the detection of new fact after the submission of final report or omission to trace out a material fact during the course of investigation. The investigating officer even without the juncture of either the defacto complainant or the accused and even without an order of the court/Magistrate can enter into further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on its own motion when there is detection of new fact or omission of any material fact which was subsequently came to their notice. Then it has to be intimated to the court

¶58

Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2014 5

¶59

wherein the proceedings based on earlier report under

¶60

Section 173(2)Cr.P.C. are pending consideration so as to enable the court to stall its further proceedings in the matter till a supplementary report is submitted in compliance of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. Any irregularity or abnormality in initiating a further investigation either at the instance of any of the parties or by virtue of the order of the Court or on its own motion

¶61

by the investigation would stand rectified on submission of supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the same would form part of earlier report for all purposes. There is no legal impediment or prohibition in bringing any new fact or evidence or existence of any new fact which was omitted to be traced out at the stage of submission of earlier report to the notice of the investigating officer, either directly by the defacto complainant or the accused or through court.

¶62

The power of the court to issue an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

¶63

would arise when a new fact or evidence or omission on

¶64

the part of investigation to trace out a material fact

¶65

Crl.R.P.No.512 of 2014 6

¶66

brought to its notice either by the defacto complainant

¶67

or by the accused. The said power cannot be treated

¶68

as an interference to the process of investigation at the instance of defacto complainant or the accused as the case may be, but enables the investigating officer to take notice of existence of a material fact either omitted to be considered at the time of submission of final report or the existence of a new material fact, which would set the law further in motion under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. Hence the order passed deserves no interference. Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

Khaleel v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaleel v. the 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

Abu Shakeer @ Podiyan Vs State of Kerala

Eljove C Chummar Vs State of Kerala

Skaria @ Skariachan.K.M Vs State of Kerala

N.G.Sreemon Vs Santha Raveendran

Prakasan K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State of Kerala