IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 921 of 2010()
1. SIBI ANTONY, ALIAS OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :31/05/2010
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.921 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010
ORDER
The accused, in Crime No.478 of 2006 of North Paravur
Police Station originally registered for an offence punishable
under Section 498 I.P.C. for enticing the de facto complainant,
a married woman and now pending before the Additional
Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), North Paravur as SC 375/09,
challenges Annexure A-I order dated 27/2/2010 as per which
the learned Additional Sessions Judge permitted the Circle
Inspector of Police, North Paravoor to conduct further
investigation under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal
Procedure on the report of the prosecutor in charge of the
case that an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. was
also prima facie made out.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that it is the second time a further investigation is
permitted by the trial court and the sword of Damocles is
unnecessarily kept hanging over the head of the petitioner.
The counsel also submitted that even assuming that there is a
case for further investigation, the trial of the case should not
have been stopped to the detriment of the petitioner.
Crl.M.C.No. 921/2010 : 2 :
3. First of all, the petitioner/accused has no locus
standi to challenge the further investigation of the case.
Secondly this is a case in which, according to the de facto
complainant, the petitioner was trying to blackmail by taking
her photograph in a mobile phone and that evidence of the
alleged rape punishable under Section 376 I.P.C also has to be
collected during the further investigation in the matter.
4. Legally speaking the investigating officer need only
report about the further investigation which is actually the
prerogative of the police. There is no need for the Court to
grant permission to conduct further investigation. The
purpose of seeking formal permission of the Court is only to
inform the Court about the further investigation so that
further trial of the case shall not be proceeded with. The
contention of the petitioner that the Court below should have
proceeded with the case during further investigation, cannot
be upheld. No grounds have been made to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the Court below. The Court below
shall proceed with the case after receipt of the supplementary
final report.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
skj