SIRAJ @ SACHU, Vs. M. MEERANAN MEERA, MINI COTTAGE, VETTIPRAM, PATHANAMTHITTA AND STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are A4 to A7 in C.C.93/2007. A private complaint was filed by the first respondent alleging offences under Secs. 167, 217 and 218 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 120B of IPC. It is stated that the daughter of the complainant had filed a complaint against accused Nos. 4 to 7 (petitioners herein) alleging offences under Sec. 452, 498A, 323, 341, 511 of 363, 506(11) and 379 r/w 34 of IPC. After investigation, a final report was filed in that case. It is stated that the defacto complainant therein, (daughter of the first respondent herein) had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for conducting further investigation in the matter alleging improper or partisan investigation. That petition was allowed and further investigation was ordered. C.M.P. Nos. 686/2005, 1852/2006 are stated to be the petitions filed for that purpose. After conducting further investigation a final report was filed; cognizance was taken and process was issued against the petitioners and that case is now stated to be pending before the learned Magistrate.

(2.) FIRST respondent herein, who is the father of the complainant in the earlier case has filed this private complaint stating that the witnesses in the earlier case were not properly questioned. The investigation was perfunctory and so the petitioners have committed the offence as mentioned above.

(3.) THE question whether the investigation conducted in the case was proper or perfunctory is a matter to be ultimately decided by the court where the main case, the case charge sheeted by the police, is filed, and that can be done only after the conclusion of the trial. For the improper conduct of investigation, petitioners who are the accused in the main case, cannot be fastened with any criminal liability, the learned counsel submits.