BINDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANNEXURE-IV, order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara on December 10, 2010 on C.M.P. No.11502 of 2010 in Crime No.149 of 2010 of Kanjiramkulam police station is under challenge. Petitioner-de facto complainant alleged that on the night of 21.01.2010 while she was half asleep one Martin snatched away her gold chain. She filed a complaint implicating the said Martin for the alleged theft and his wife for allegedly receiving the gold chain knowing it to be a stolen article. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Karnjiramkulam police registered Crime No.149 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since according to the petitioner investigation was not proceeding in the correct line, she filed C.M.P. No. 11502 of 2010 seeking a direction that the case be investigated by a superior officer of the Sub Inspector or other agency. Learned Magistrate called for a report from the Sub Inspector who was investigating the case. The Sub Inspector submitted ANNEXURE-III, report stating that the case be included in the list of undetected cases. Based on that, the learned Magistrate has passed ANNEXURE-IV, order holding that monitoring of the case or change of investigating officer is not required. Consequently that petition was dismissed. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submits that learned Magistrate has not properly considered ANNEXURE-III, report submitted by the Sub Inspector. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

(2.) IT is seen that in Annexure-III, report at one stage it is stated that in the course of investigation it was revealed that the accused (obviously referring to Martin) committed theft of gold chain weighing > sovereign while petitioner was half asleep stretching his arm through the window on 21.01.2010 at or about midnight. Further in the same report it is stated that neither the accused (obviously Martin) nor his wife is involved in the alleged incident. There was a case registered as Crime No.102 of 2010 pending consideration in the court of learned Magistrate as C.C. No.256 of 2010 for assaulting a relative of petitioner and on account of that enmity petitioner filed the complaint against the accused persons, it is stated in the said report.