LALITHA Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in C.C.No.1251/09 (Crime No.887/2008 of Irinjalakuda Police Station) on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda for issuing direction to the investigating agency to expedite investigation under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.1251/09 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. The case was originated on the basis of a Crime No.877/08 of Irinjalakuda Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant who is the 3rd respondent herein against the petitioner and others alleging commission of the offences under Sections 405, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure P1 Final Report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.1251/09 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. The allegation made by the complainant (third respondent herein) in the case was that the first accused - petitioner herein who had filed a complaint against third respondent alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as C.C.2580/08 has some how obtained the cheque leaf of the de facto complainant and forged the same and filed the complaint against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused appeared and they were released on bail. Thereafter, C.C.No.1251/2009 was posted for evidence and summons were issued to Cws 1 and 2. Since they did not appear, non - bailable warrant has been issued. The de facto complainant in the case did not appear and she was trying to protract that proceedings. Thereafter, the de facto complainant ie., third respondent herein filed CrlM.P.No.10266/11 in that case for conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned magistrate allowed the application and further investigation was ordered as per Ext.P3 order dated 03.08.2012 directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file further final report on or before 20.09.2012. In spite of that, no further investigation was effectively conducted and they are not filing any report and the disposal of the case is being prolonged on account of that. Even the learned magistrate had expressed dissatisfaction in the manner in which the investigating officer conducting the further investigation. On account of the pendency of C.C.No.1251/09, the disposal of C.C.No.2580/08 filed by the petitioner is also being delayed. So, she want to expedite the trial in C.C.No.1251/09 for which the investigating officer has to file the final report after conducting further investigation as ordered by the court. So, she has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:

(3.) ON the basis of this, earlier a report has been called for from the concerned magistrate court regarding this aspect and the learned magistrate had sent a report dated 02.04.2014 which reads as follows: