HITHIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a Magistrate under S.156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure direct the Investigating Officer to incorporate a particular offence and investigate This is the question to be settled.

(2.) Petitioner in Crl MC 877/2009 is the accused in Crime No. 570/2008 of Varapuzha Police Station. Petitioner in WP (C) 17828/2009 is the de facto complainant therein. Crl MC 877/2009 is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure B order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur under S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a petition filed by the writ petitioner. The learned Magistrate directed the Investigating Officer to incorporate the provisions of SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and investigate the case finding that the allegations in the First Information Statement, the wound certificate as well as the statement of the doctor are sufficient to attract commission of an offence under S.3(1)(iii) of the Act. Writ petition is filed by the de facto complainant underArt.226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus to entrust the investigation of the case to an independent investigating agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl MC 877/2009, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.