MOOTHATTIL SREEDHARAN Vs. THAYYULLATHIL KELAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the brother of Kalliani whose dead body was found in a well on the rear side of the house of her husband, the first respondent on the morning of 16.01.2007. According to the petitioner, it is a homicide. But on some false or mistaken statement given by some interested person, the police registered Crime No.16 of 2007 under caption "unnatural death". PETITIONER filed Ext.P4, petition before the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Payyoli to direct a re-postmortem examination of the body of the deceased to be conducted by a panel of forensic experts. Police submitted Ext.P5, report before learned Munsiff-Magistrate stating that investigation is in progress. In Ext.P5 also it is stated that death is the result of suicide. While so, petitioner filed Ext.P3, private complaint before the learned Munsiff-Magistrate against certain persons. In the meantime, petitioner filed W.P(C). No.2950 of 2008 in this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated February 22, 2008. This Court thought that it is sufficient to issue a direction to the learned Munsiff-Magistrate to consider Ext.P3, private complaint in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible along with all prayers raised in the petitions which are filed along with the private complaint. Grievance of petitioner is that learned Munsiff- Magistrate while proceeding on Ext.P3, complaint and conducting enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") on 11.07.2007 stayed further proceeding on Ext.P3 under Sec.210 of the Code on the strength of the report filed by the investigating officer that investigation is still in progress. In the meantime, the Superintendent of Police, Rural, Kozhikode by Ext.P9, order entrusted investigation of the case to one Subramanian, IPS. In this proceeding, petitioner seeks a direction that investigation of the case be handed over to the 7th respondent, the CBI and call for a final report. It is also prayed that learned Munsiff-Magistrate may be directed to kept in abeyance proceeding under Sec.202 of the Code on Ext.P3 and await report of the investigating officer (of the CBI). I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned standing counsel appearing for 7th respondent.

(2.) IT is seen that as per Ext.P9, the Superintendent of Police, Rural, Kozhikode has entrusted investigation of the case to a senior police officer. That order was passed on 05.02.2009. Ext.P6, proceeding of the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Payyoli on Ext.P3, private complaint shows that on 11.07.2007 learned Munsiff-Magistrate acting upon the report of the Sub Inspector stayed further proceeding on the private complaint under Sec.210 of the Code. As per the said provision when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a "report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation".