RAMACHANDRAN KRISHNA VARMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate IV, Kozhikode in C.M.P. No. 3412 of 2011 in C.C. No. 887 of 2010. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in the aforesaid calender case which was registered against one Vidyadharan. P.R., the accused therein for commission of offences under Sections 420, 427 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-1 is the FIR in Crime No. 327 of 2010 registered at Nadakkavu Police Station based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein. After conducting an investigation Annexure-2 final report was filed in the aforesaid crime and evidently, cognisance was taken thereon and it was registered and taken on file as C.C.No.887 of 2010. Annexure-2 would reveal that the allegations of commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 406 IPC were investigated. It would reveal that besides the offences under Sections 420, 427 and 406, IPC commission of offence punishable under Section 201, IPC was also alleged against the said accused. The case of the petitioner herein is that the accused Vidyadharan is a car mechanic and he is running a workshop in the name and style "Chakra Motors" in Nadakkavu, Kozhikode. The petitioner entrusted a Skoda Laura Car purchased by him for his sister's son bearing registration No. TN 37 BA 9750 with the accused for repairing. The accused demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards repair charges. Thereafter, on numerous times the petitioner approached the accused and demanded for the return of the car after completing the repair works. The accused assigned one or other reason on such occasions and later, the petitioner went to the workshop to get back the car and to entrust the repair works with some other person. At that point of time the accused informed him that the repair works were over and even then he did not return the car. Owing to the suspicious conduct from the part of the accused the petitioner entered into the workshop and searched for his car and found the same in the workshop. However, he was shocked to see that the original rear bumper, the rear door and other important parts of the car fitted by the manufacturer had been removed and in its place duplicate parts have been placed. According to the petitioner, on being asked about the same the accused informed him that he had fitted those parts taken from the petitioner's car in another car brought to the workshop after an accident. It is raising such allegations that the petitioner filed the complaint for initiating prosecution proceedings against the accused. It was that complaint which was investigated and ultimately led to the registration of the aforesaid crime and ultimately in the registration of C.C.No.887 of 2010.

(2.) The petitioner attributes defective investigation in this case. According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer should have conducted proper investigation to locate the person to whom the spare parts of his car were fraudulently sold and then to search and seize those spare parts. As noticed hereinbefore, after conducting the investigation the Investigating Officer found that the records which were kept in the workshop capable of giving clue to such aspects were destroyed and therefore, he is incapacitated to conduct investigation in that regard. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 201, IPC was also added. After the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the report filed in Crime No. 327 of 2010 of Nadakkavu Police Station under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 3412 of 2011 seeking further investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. The said application viz., Annexure-3 was considered by the learned Magistrate and Annexure-4 order was passed. As per Annexure-4, the said application was dismissed. It is challenging the said order that the captioned Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.