IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4066 of 2009()
1. M.K.SUNNY, S/O. KURIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 4066 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 18th day of February,2010
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction
to the second respondent to file a final report
forthwith in Crime No.566/2008 of Vaikom
Police Station after conducting proper
investigation. The case of the petitioner is
that eventhough Annexure A1 complaint filed
before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom
was sent for investigation under section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the crime
was registered, no proper investigation was
conducted and petitioner had filed Annexure A2
petition before the learned Magistrate under
section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure showing the name of the details of
the vehicle including the R.C owner and still
Crl.M.C.4066/2009 2
proper investigation is not being conducted and
therefore a direction is to be issued.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Annexure A3 report submitted before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom by the
Investigating Officer on 22.9.2009 shows that
though the details of the registered owner was
procured, Investigating Officer could not find him
as the addressee was not there and the concern is
not now working. There is force in the submission
of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that there is no proper investigation.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
subsequent to the filing of the petition, the
registered owner was questioned and it is revealed
that he has sold the vehicle in 2003 itself and he
could not give the further particulars. It is up
to the Investigating Officer to trace out the
vehicle as well as the person who was driving the
vehicle on the date of the incident. The report
does not show that any attempt was made to trace
Crl.M.C.4066/2009 3
out the vehicle or to find out who is now using the
vehicle.
5. In such circumstances, petition is disposed
of directing the second respondent to conduct a
proper investigation to be supervised by the
concerned Circle Inspector of Police. The
Investigating Officer must investigate the case
properly. If there was no change of registration
subsequently, the registered owner must be in a
position to say who was using the vehicle on the
date of the incident. It is up to the
Investigating Officer to find out who was actually
driving the vehicle on the date of the incident.
The Investigating Officer shall submit reports
showing the progress of the investigation once in
three weeks before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Vaikom.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006