High Court Kerala High Court

Stany Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Stany Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 765 of 2008()


1. STANY ABRAHAM, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.PAILY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :12/03/2008

 O R D E R
                      V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                 = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   Crl.M.C.No. 765 of 2008
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
           Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008

                             ORDER

The petitioner, who is the accused in crime No. 367 of 2006

of Manjeshwar Police Station for offences punishable under

Sections 380 and 381 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Kasaragod as C.C. No. 213 of 2007, seeks to quash Annexure-A4

charge sheet and all further proceedings before the Magistrate.

2. According to the petitioner, the original complaint lodged

by the de facto complainant not only arrayed the petitioner as

the 2nd accused but also made allegations against accused Nos. 1

and 3 besides alleging the commission of an offence punishable

under Section 381 IPC. But the police after investigation deleted

accused Nos. 1 and 3 and placing the petitioner alone for trial

after substituting Section 381 IPC with Section 457 IPC. No

reasons have been given by the Investigating Agency as to why

they have deleted accused Nos. 1 and 3 from the array of the

accused.

Crl.M.C.No. 765/2008
2

3. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has a grievance

that there has been no proper investigation in the case, the

petitioner can move the trial court under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C

and in the event of that court being convinced about the

grievance of the petitioner, that court can order further

investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Reserving this right of

the petitioner, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv