IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 443 of 2010()
1. PRATHEESH JOHN, AGED 27,
... Petitioner
2. ALEX JOHN, AGED 26 YEARS,
3. T.K.JACOB, FATHER OF NEVIN JACOB,
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.443 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners 1 and 2 are the defacto
complainants in Crime No.49/2007 of Thumba Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-A1 complaint
filed by the petitioners, along with two others,
before Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
was sent to the Station House Officer, Thumba
Police Station, based on which, the FIR was
registered. This petition is filed under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction
to conduct further investigation in the case under
Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure by a
superior officer not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police under the direct control
of Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
contending that crores of rupees are involved and
the accused are very influential and due to their
influence, proper investigation was not conducted.
CRMC 443/10 2
2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned counsel, relying on the decision of
the Apex Court in Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v. State
of Gujarat ((2009) 9 SCC 610), argued that when the
investigation is tardy and slow, as is clear from
the very fact that in spite of registration of the
case in 2007, the culprits were not brought before
the court, this Court has to exercise the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a
report was submitted by the Investigating Officer
before the Magistrate stating that defacto
complainants and others are in foreign countries
and several documents are to be seized and as and
when the defacto complainants will be available,
further investigation will be conducted.
5. As held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v.
State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724), the remedy of the
CRMC 443/10 3
petitioners is to approach the learned Magistrate
first and then only approach this Court.
Petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure. If they fail to get a favourable order,
they are at liberty to approach this Court.
Petition is disposed accordingly.
19th March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv