PRASANNAKUMARI Vs. KRISHNAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) De facto complainant in Crime No. 410 of 2009 of Oachira Police Station is the Petitioner before me. He alleged theft of 9=sovereigns of gold ornaments from his sister and her daughter. Petitioner complains that there is no proper investigation of the case and that no attempt was made to recover the stolen article. In the meantime the police submitted final report against accused 1 to 3 on which learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally has taken cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate has filed the case as C.C. No. 410 of 2010. Petitioner has received summons in the case. His apprehension is that if without recovery of the material object the case goes for trial, it will end in acquittal. Hence it is prayed that the second Respondent may be directed to conduct reinvestigation of Crime No. 410 of 2009. Learned Counsel argued that in the circumstances stated above, this Court may direct re or atleast, further investigation of the case. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that on questioning accused 1 to 3, it was revealed that they had entrusted the stolen article to the fourth accused whose whereabouts, the police has not able to find and hence no recovery could be effected. It is in the circumstances that final report was submitted against accused 1 to 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused 1 to 3 were arrested on 05.03.2010 and are in judicial custody.

(2.) It is seen from the final report submitted by the police that it is directed only against accused 1 to 3. Concededly, may be for the reason that whereabouts of the fourth accused could not be traced, no recovery could be effected. In the circumstances it appears to me that further investigation of the case is required. But I do not find reason to direct re-investigation of the case. This criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of in the following lines: