N.Rajasree vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 20 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 277 of 2009()


1. N.RAJASREE, W/O (LATE)ARAVINDAKSHAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB.INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.SIVAJI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :20/01/2009

 O R D E R
                             R. BASANT, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Crl.M.C.No. 277 of 2009
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009

                                O R D E R

The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution

initiated, inter alia, under Section 471 I.P.C. The crux of the

allegations is that an fixed deposit receipt was forged and

encahsed on the strength of the forged signature of the defacto

complainant in such fixed deposit receipt. Investigation is

complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has

been taken. Trial is about to commence.

2. At this juncture the petitioner has realised that there has

been no proper investigation in the case. He is particularly

aggrieved by the fact that the allegedly forged signature has not

been sent to an expert to solicit his expert opinion as to whether

the signature in the fixed deposit receipt is forged or not. This

inadequacy may help the accused and defeat the cause of justice.

It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this

Court for issue of appropriate direction under Section 482

Crl.M.C.No. 277 of 2009
2

Cr.P.C. The petitioner points out that earlier he had requested the

Superintendent of Police to take necessary action to get a further

investigation conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. But no effective

action has been taken.

3. The grievance of the petitioner prima facie appears to be

legitimate on the basis of the submissions made at the Bar. But the

course adopted by the petitioner cannot certainly be said to be

justified. I find no justification in his rushing to this Court with this

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has an equally efficacious

alternative remedy to move the learned Magistrate under Section 173

(8) Cr.P.C. The decision in Shaji v. State (2003 (2) KLT 929) makes

it crystal clear that a defacto complainant aggrieved by inadequate

quality of investigation conducted can request the Magistrate to direct

a further investigation to be conducted. Instead of doing that, the

petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to this Court.

4. I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C. only deserves to be dismissed,

but with the specific observation that the option of the petitioner

Crl.M.C.No. 277 of 2009
3

under law to move the learned Magistrate for directions under Section

173(8) Cr.P.C. shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C.

5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed.

6. Hand over the order.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm