IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 3298 of 2008(P)
1. D.KURIAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. BINI THOMAS, W/O.LATE THOMAS,
3. LIMI THOMAS (MINOR) AGED 15 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. P.K.CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN
6. SAJEEV KUMAR.K.C., S/O.P.K.CHANDRAN
7. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/02/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
W.P.C.No.3298 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February 2008
J U D G M E N T
The first petitioner is an injured in a road traffic accident.
He was allegedly travelling in an autorickshaw which was driven
by the predecessor in the interests of petitioners 2 and 3. The
first petitioner as well as the said autorickshaw driver suffered
injuries in the accident. The predecessor in interest of
petitioners 2 and 3 succumbed to his injuries. Allegations were
raised that the accident occurred on account of the rashness and
negligence of the driver of another vehicle. Crime was
registered. Investigation was conducted and final report was
filed by the investigating officer alleging that the sixth
respondent, allegedly the driver of the other vehicle, was guilty
of rashness and negligence. On the final report filed by the
police, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and
C.C.No.863/03 was registered before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Pala.
2. While C.C.No.863/03 was pending, the seventh
respondent, National Insurance Company appears to have filed a
complaint before the superior officials of the police alleging that
the sixth respondent has unjustifiably been brought on the array
W.P.C.No.3298/08 2
of accused solely with the intention of making the seventh
respondent insurer of the said vehicle to be liable to compensate
the petitioners. Further investigation under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C has been conducted subsequently and a further report
has been filed by the investigator. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that no decision has been taken by the
learned Magistrate so far and the matter is pending before the
learned Magistrate.
3. According to the petitioner, the further investigation
conducted is totally unjustified. No proper further investigation
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C has been conducted. In these
circumstances, it is prayed that the said further report may be
set aside and appropriate directions may be issued to the learned
Magistrate to proceed with the trial in C.C.No.863/03.
4. Petitioners are aggrieved by the further investigation
conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the further
report is pending before the learned Magistrate and no decision
has been taken by the learned Magistrate in the matter so far.
The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain
how in the light of the decision in Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P &
Others [2008 AIR SCW 309] this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution maintainable before this court.
W.P.C.No.3298/08 3
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits
that the extraordinary circumstances available in this case must
prompt this court to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
6. I am unable to agree. It is for the petitioners to
appear before the learned Magistrate and raise appropriate
objections against the final report submitted by the police under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is for the learned Magistrate to
consider such report in the light of such objection as may be
raised by the petitioners and issue appropriate directions in the
matter. I need not embark on any further discussions or suggest
the nature of orders that can be passed by the learned
Magistrate. Suffice it to say that the learned Magistrate must
consider the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C along with the
objections, if any, raised by the petitioners and pass appropriate
directions to ensure a proper investigation as indicated in the
decision in Sakri Vasu Supra.
7. With the above observations, this writ petition is
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge
W.P.C.No.3298/08 4
W.P.C.No.3298/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007
