SOUBHAGYA M.P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure-A12 order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ottappalam, refusing to direct further investigation in Crime No.566/2021 of Ottappalam Police Station, is under challenge in this petition filed by the de facto complainant under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The final report filed in the said crime relating to the commission of offence under Sec. 498A I.P.C. was accepted to files as C.C No.515/2021 by the learned Magistrate. The de facto complainant had earlier filed Crl.M.P No.3831/2021 before the learned Magistrate for further investigation stating the reason that the Investigating Officer did not conduct investigation in respect of several other allegations raised by the de facto complainant. As per Annexure-A7 order dtd. 10/1/2022, the learned Magistrate allowed the above petition in part and directed the Investigating Officer to conduct a further investigation. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur conducted further investigation and filed Annexure-A10 supplementary final report incorporating the offences under Ss. 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C also, in addition to Sec. 498A I.P.C. Dissatisfied with the above supplementary final report, the de facto complainant filed Crl.M.P No.3206/2023 before the learned Magistrate contending that the Investigating Officer had not included the offence under Sec. 308 I.P.C, nor recovered the weapons used by the accused for the commission of the crime, and hence further investigation has to be again ordered. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dtd. 11/12/2024, dismissed the above petition with the observation that there is no evidence prima facie to order a re-investigation (sic-appears to be a misnomer for further investigation) to include Sec. 308 I.P.C. It is the aforesaid order, which is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

(3.) The alleged physical assault of the second respondent/accused upon the de facto complainant is the subject matter of this crime. The de facto complainant, in her statement given to the Investigating Officer, had alleged that the second respondent had hit her upon her head with a curtain rod, grabbed her neck and brandished a knife with the threat that she would be eliminated. The aforesaid acts are alleged to have been committed by the second respondent on 22/3/2021 and 24/3/2021, while they were residing at Chennai. The 14 year old son of the petitioner and the second respondent is said to have witnessed the above physical assault of the second respondent upon the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the statements given by her to the police, and her son to the Magistrate, would clearly indicate that the act of the second respondent in the above regard would constitute the offence under Sec. 308 I.P.C.