The High Court dismissed an accused's Criminal Misc. Case praying for re-investigation into his matrimonial offence. The court reiterated that re-investigation is not a right and contended should be raised before the trial court.
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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.4105 OF 2018
[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1604/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-VII (FAST TRACK COURT-IV), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1138/2016 OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM]
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANILKUMAR.K
T.C.47/1328(1), KORIYAVILAKAM, BALA NAGAR, POONTHURA (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.S.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NO.4105 OF 2018 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 8th day of January 2021
This Crl.M.C. is filed by the accused in
Sessions Case No.1604 of 2017 pending before the Additional Sessions Court-VII (Fast Track Court-IV), Thiruvananthapuram for ordering re-investigation in Crime No.1138 of 2016 of Poonthura Police Station by the crime branch wing of Kerala Police.
petitioner, the final report is filed against the petitioner without properly investigating the case
and he approached the authorities for
CRL.M.C.NO.4105 OF 2018 3
re-investigation. But there is no reply from the
authorities. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is filed for
ordering re-investigation in Crime No.1138 of 2016.
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
settled position that, the accused cannot prays for re-investigation of a case as of his right. The Apex Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala [2008(3)SCC 542] observed that, neither
the accused nor the complainant or informant is entitled to choose their own investigation agency
CRL.M.C.NO.4105 OF 2018 4
to investigate a crime in which they may be interested. I do not want to make any further observation in this case. The petitioner can raise all his contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
With these observations, this Crl.M.C. is
closed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
pkk
JUDGE
CRL.M.C.NO.4105 OF 2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 27.01.2017. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.07.2016. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.08.2016.
//TRUE COPY// SD/P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a re-investigation order ex parte without approaching the trial court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of KeralaReferred¶30
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala [2008(3)SCC 542] · Who else cites this
ANILKUMAR.K
STATE OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
