SURESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <FRM>JUDGEMENT_728_LAWS(KER)7_2012.htm</FRM>

(2.) PETITIONER is the husband of a victim of murder. Crime registered thereof after investigation has lead to indictment of the accused person, a previous convict for offences punishable under Section 302 and 392 of the Penal Code. After committal, that case is awaiting trial numbered as S.C. No. 106/2009 on the file of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. Petitioner has filed the above writ petition impeaching the final report filed in the above crime contending that the investigation has not been fair and that it suffered from serious lapses since effective steps have not been taken by the Investigating agency to gather legal evidence to sustain the indictment imputed against the accused person. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on George Muthoot Vs. State of Kerala : 2010 (1) KLT 399 contended that even after filing of the final report, a close relative of the victim of murder, who comes under the definition of Section 2 (Wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can seek the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to order further investigation of the crime in case he has sustainable grounds to do so. Committal proceedings are over and further steps are taken for trial of the case by the Sessions court cannot by itself interdict the right of the de facto complainant to seek intervention of the court in the circumstances referred to, is the further submission of the counsel. After hearing the counsel in extenso and also looking into the reported decision relied by the counsel, I find that though it is open for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in a deserving case after filing of a final report in a crime, to pass appropriate orders as are found necessary, normally, such a course is to be avoided. An inbuilt statutory right is available to an aggrieved person under Section 173(8) of the Code, to seek further investigation in case there are sustainable ground to do so by approaching the court before which such report has been filed by the Investigating agency. It is no longer in dispute that even after cognizance is taken of the offences under the report, permission to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) will be available with the investigating agency and also an aggrieved person who is entitled to seek for such an order/direction. However, the question whether a third party is entitled to seek such an order has to be examined by the court with reference to the grounds raised and also the materials produced before the court. It is open to the petitioner to seek intervention of the Sessions Judge, if he has sustainable grounds to do so, for further investigation of the crime, in case he has got a grievance that the investigation of the crime was not proper.