IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1757 of 2008()
1. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.ABU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. M/S.RELIANCE INDIA COMMUNICATIONS
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/05/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1757 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May 2008
O R D E R
Annexure 2 crime was registered by the Feroke police raising
allegations inter alia under Section 420 I.P.C and Sections 4 and 20
of Indian Telegraph Act. In that, the petitioner has not been shown
as an accused. Later, by Annexure 5, the petitioner and another are
arrayed as accused 2 and 3. The petitioner has already surrendered
and has been enlarged on bail. Investigation is in progress.
2. According to the petitioner, the allegations raised against
him are all unjustified and not sustainable. He therefore prays that
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to bring to
premature termination the proceedings initiated under Annexure 2
F.I.R. The said F.I.R has now been transferred for investigation to
the CBCID and the CBCID is conducting the investigation, it is
submitted.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions,
reports that the investigation is in progress. Investigators have
unearthed materials against the petitioner. investigation may not
be prematurely terminated at this stage. The learned Public
Prosecutor submits that a further time of two months may be
granted to the investigating officers to complete the investigation.
The petitioner having already been enlarged on bail. I find that
Crl.M.C.No.1757/08 2
there is absolutely no compelling reason to invoke the extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I shall carefully
avoid any expression of opinion on merits about the acceptability of
the allegations against the petitioner. Suffice it to say that I am not
persuaded to agree that there is any reason to prematurely
terminate the investigation into the crime at the moment.
Investigators can be granted reasonable time to complete the
investigation and if the final report is filed finally against the
petitioner, the petitioner’s option to challenge the final report can
be maintained.
4. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed
accepting the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor that
investigation shall be completed and the final report shall be filed
expeditiously – within a period of two months at any rate. I make it
clear that if the final report is not filed within a period of three
months, the petitioner’s option to approach this court again shall
remain. It is further clarified that the dismissal of this Criminal
Miscellaneous Case will not in any way fetter the rights of the
petitioner to challenge the final report if the same be filed raising
allegations against the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.1757/08 3
Crl.M.C.No.1757/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007