PREMKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.M.C. is filed by the accused in Crime No. 57/03 of Kadakkavoor Police Station in Kerala pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate s Court, Varkala as CP. 10/ 04. The prayer advanced by the petitioners is to quash Annexure-C Final Report and all proceedings pursuant thereto in CP. 10/04 aforesaid.

(2.) The contention that is advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in relation to death of one Jeeja, the wife of the first petitioner and daughter-in-law of petitioners 2 and 3, Crime No. 64/03 was registered at Courtallam Police Station in Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu; that investigation therein was conducted and Annexure-A Final Report in Tamil, English translation of which is Annexure-B was filed on 21.7.2003; and that therefore, Annexure-C Final Report filed in Crime No. 57/08 registered on 4.3.2003 at the Kadakkavoor Police Station in relation to the same incident on a complaint filed by the father of deceased Jeeja before the Attingal Dy. S.P. is illegal and deserves to be quashed. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala,20013 CCR 55, wherein the Apex Court has on a detailed consideration of the provisions of Sections 154 to 157,162,169, 170 and 173 of the Cr.P.C., held that there can only be one FIR in relation to a crime and that, therefore, registration of a second FIR under Section 154, Cr.P.C. on the basis of the letter of Director General of Police as Crime No. 268/97 is not valid and that the investigation made pursuant thereto was of no legal consequence. The FIR so registered a second time was hence quashed, however, without prejudice to the investigating agency seeking leave of the Court in Crime Nos. 353/94 and 354/94 for making further investigation and filing a further report or reports under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. before the competent Magistrate in the said cases and that, therefore, in the instant case a second Final Report filed as Annexure-C in Crime No. 57/03 of Kadakkavoor Police Station deserves to be quashed. He has also contended on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police,2004 3 DMC 317, that when the offences are alleged to have taken place within the jurisdiction of Courtallam Police Station and no offence is alleged to have been committed within the territorial limits of Kadakkavoor Police Station the proceedings culminating in Annexure-C report deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Before considering the questions of law canvassed certain admitted facts deserve to be stated. Marriage of the first petitioner with deceased Jeeja has taken place on 12.9.1999. Immediately after marriage they were residing for some time at Kaithamukku in Vanchiyoor village; thereafter in another house at Shencottah and later, at Courtallam and a child also was born to them on 6.3.2000. Petitioners 2 and 3 were also residing with the first petitioner and his wife/the deceased. On 14.2.2003, the deceased was found hanging at the house of the petitioners. On the basis of information furnished by the second petitioner, Crime No. 64/03 was registered at Courtallam Police Station under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C on 14.2.2003 itself. On intimation given, parents of Jeeja came over from Attingal and in their presence it is alleged that the Executive Magistrate opened the room and conducted inquest of the body of the deceased.