K N NATARAJAN Vs. SASIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in the petition filled (Annexure A is the true copy of the petition) by the revision petitioner before the court below (judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court-11, Cherthala) in C.C.N.o 522/98 was for ordering re-investigation in C.C. Nos. 533 and 522 of 1998 pending before that court so as to ensure full justice to them (they claim to be innocent). The learned Magistrate declined to allow the prayer made in Annexure-a petition and calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order (Annexure B order), this revision has been preferred. Without adverting to the assertions made by the revision petitioner in Annexure-A, voicing grievance against the alleged lopsided, faulty and perfunctory manner of investigation conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Muhamma Police Station in crime No. 134/98 of that police station which culminated in laying Chellan against the revision petitioners accusing them of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 read with section 34 IPC, this revision can be disposed of.

(2.) The pivotal or the coe question that is to be answered is whether a judicial magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report and after appearance of the accused in pursuance of the process issued, can order further investigation.

(3.) Before proceeding to answer the question possed, some facts which are relevant and material are to be stated here. In C.C.No. 522 of 1998, revision petitioners were examing as Pws 1 and 2 and accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At the time of filling Annexure A petition before the trial magistrate, that case was posted for adducing defence evidence. It transpired that in the cross case police report has been filed against the revision petitioners accusing them of having committed offence punishable under Section 341 and 323 read with section 34 IPC and the learned Magistrate took congnizance of the offences. Revision petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate in pursuance of the proceed issued and the cross case is pending before the magistrate court.