PONNU PRABHAGHAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 16th day of April, 2021 The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Vanchiyoor Police Station. It was alleged that the 6th respondent, who belongs to the forward caste Hindu Reddiyar community, had secured admission for MD General Medicine at Government Medical College, Thiruvannathapuram, claiming to be a person belonging to the Kondareddy community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe Community in Tamil Nadu. The false claim was made on the strength of forged community and nativity certificates. The 6th respondent fraudulently obtained National Overseas Scholarship for students belonging to SC/ST category also. It was alleged that the 6th respondent contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was subsistence and had thereby committed the offence under Section 494 of IPC. The petitioner's complaint resulted in Crime No.519 of 2019 being registered at the Vanchiyoor Police Station for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 494, 420 and 198 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed Ext.P2 final report and the Judicial First Class Magistrate-XI, Thiruvananthapuram took cognisance of the offences mentioned above. The case is now pending as C.C.No.831 of 2020.

(2.) The writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the lackadaisical manner on which the investigation was conducted and final report filed. It is alleged that no effort was taken by the investigating officer to seize the relevant documents and question the crucial witnesses with respect to the fraud committed by the petitioner, forgery of certificates and other documents, the benefits received by the petitioner based on his false claim etc. It is contended that the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offences without application of mind, which is evident from the court having taken cognisance of the offence under Section 494 of IPC despite the specific bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C, The petitioner therefore prays for a de novo investigation of the crime by constituting a special investigation team.

(3.) Learned Senior Government Pleader fairly submits that a scrutiny of the case diary indicates certain flaws in the investigation, which may benefit the accused in his defence, but such flaws would not entitle the petitioner to demand de novo investigation. That, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional court with an application seeking further investigation.