ANISH ANAND Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 28 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No. 1041 of 2014 of Pathanamthitta police station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sec. 420 and 354A IPC and Sec. 119(a) of Kerala Police Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the accused made friendship with the defacto complainant over social media, received a total sum of Rs.26,00,000.00 from her after promising to repay the same with higher rate of interest. When she demanded repayment of the amount, he invited her to meet him near the Manorama, Kottayam office. When she reached there in a car, the petitioner allegedly outraged her modesty by grabbing her breasts and requested her to accompany him for receiving the payment. He also threatened her that unless she obeys him, he will not repay the amount and also that he will morph her nude photographs and transmit the same through social media. Exhibit P8 is the complaint filed by the defacto complainant which resulted in Exhibit P9 FIR registered by the SHO, Pathanamthitta Police Station. Exhibit P11 is the final report filed by the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, which was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as CC 28 of 2015.

(3.) Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, alleging that the offence under Sec. 376 IPC was also committed by the accused and praying for ordering further investigation in the case. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the above application. It appears that thereafter the defacto complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta raising the same contentions. The Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta, entrusted further investigation with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Pathanamthita. Exhibits P12 and P13 are the reports submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, further investigation conducted by a different agency, that too without the permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Exhibit P12 and Exhibit P13 reports submitted by the said agency are unsustainable and liable to be rejected.