(1.) A short but interesting question emerges for consideration on the challenges raised in the aforesaid Crl. M.C. filed under S. 482 of the Code to assail Annexure VIII order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Facts in brief, to the extent necessary for disposal of this petition, can be summed up thus:
(2.) The de facto complainant in Crime No. 621 of 2011 has got impleaded as additional 2nd respondent in the petition. He has filed a counter with some documents opposing the challenge against Annexure VIII order.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer confined his submissions solely over the question of competency of the Police Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Sub Division to seek permission from the court for further investigation of the two crimes, in which, final reports had already been filed before the court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Pettah Police Station does not fall within the local area covered by the Cantonment Sub Division, Thiruvananthapuram but it is within a different Sub Division, namely, Shangumugham Sub Division. When that be so, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Sub Division, who cannot be considered as a Superior Police Officer in relation to the Station House Officer of Pettah Police Station, is incompetent to move for further investigation of the crime even if he is a Superior Officer of the Station House Officer of the above Station, submits the counsel. That challenge is resisted to by the learned Director General of Prosecutions, Sri. T. Asaf Ali banking upon the supervisory authority of the Director General of Police and his empowerment to entrust the investigation of the crime to a Police officer above the rank of the Station House Officer. S. 18(1) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 confers such authority on the Director General of Police, State Chief, and it is on the basis of his orders, further investigation of the crimes was taken over by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Sub Division, who had later moved Annexure VII order before the court to seek permission for further investigation, is the submission of the Director General of Prosecutions. S. 36 of the Code empowering a superior police officer above the rank of Station House Officer to conduct investigation of the crime, is also canvassed by the learned Director General of Prosecutions to contend that the challenge against Annexure VIII order is without any merit. Reliance is also placed on State of Bihar and Another v. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors., 1980 SCC(Cri) 272 to contend that the power of superintendence conferred with Police Chief would comprehend the power to exercise effective control over the investigation of the crime as well and also empowerment to depute any superior police officer above the rank of the Station House Officer in conducting of investigation of one or more crimes. Supporting the arguments canvassed by the learned Director General of Prosecutions, the learned counsel for the additional 2nd respondent, Sri. K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan contended that the Police Officer, who applied for permission to conduct further investigation of the crimes was fully empowered to do so as authorised by the police Chief. Additional 2nd respondent has filed a petition pointing out serious lapses in the investigation of the crimes, and being satisfied of the cause shown, the Police Chief ordered to take steps for further investigation entrusting the conducting of such investigation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Sub Division. Copies of the petition filed and communication sent by the Police Chief, produced by the additional second respondent, are relied by the counsel to contend that the Police Officer, who moved Annexure VII petition before the court, has full authority to do so, and Annexure VIII order passed by the learned Magistrate granting permission for further investigation in the crimes, in such circumstances, is unassailable.