Of Judicial Magistrate Of First ... vs By Advs
2021 Latest Caselaw 4850 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                    Crl.Rev.Pet.No.290 OF 2011

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 14812/2008 IN C.C.NO.963 OF 2007
        OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR


PETITIONER IN CRL.R.P.-PETITIONER IN C.M.P-CW-1 IN C.C.

             SUDHAKARAN, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY,
             PADUTHALAVEETTIL, ETTUMUNA DESOM, URAKAM VILLAGE.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
             SRI.N.AJITH
             SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
             SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
             SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
             SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

RESPONDENTS IN CRL.R.P-RESPONDENTS IN C.M.P:

      1      THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
             PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

      *2     P.R.BIJOY (INVESTIGATING OFFICER)
             SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPU-680 561.(DELETED)

               * RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY, AS
             PER ORDER DATED 31/1/2011 IN CRMA 948/2011.

      3      UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN
             KARANAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMUNA, URAKAM-680 502.

      4      ANILAN, S/O. GOPALAN,
             KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, IN -DO- -DO-, PIN-680 562.

      5      MANIKANDAN, S/O. CHANDRAN
             KUNDAYI CHANDRAN, IN -DO- -DO-, PIN-680 562.


             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.290 OF 2011       2




                               ORDER

Revision is against the order passed by the

learned Magistrate allowing further investigation

under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., based on the

production of a wound certificate showing fracture

sustained to the injured. Further investigation

was ordered at the instance of CW1, the injured

defacto complainant. Though it is the domain of

the investigating officer under Section 173(8) to

conduct further investigation on detection of a new

fact or discovery of a material fact, it is quite

permissible to order further investigation by the

court on satisfying detection of a new fact or

discovery of a new material fact. Admittedly, the

final report was submitted only for the offence

under Section 323 IPC, without noticing the bony

injury and fracture sustained to the

injured/defacto complainant (CW1). The wound

certificate produced by the defacto complainant

would prima facie show and reveal a new fact with

respect to the nature of injury alleged to have

been sustained by him, for which no investigation

seen done by the agency. The fact that a final

report was submitted only for the offence under

Section 323 IPC would show the failure/omission on

the part of the investigating agency in taking note

of the material fact, the alleged bony injury

sustained by the defacto complainant. Hence, the

order of the Magistrate refusing to conduct further

investigation in the matter cannot be sustained.

The jurisdiction vested with the Magistrate has not

been exercised in its correct perspective. Hence,

the order of the Magistrate is hereby set aside,

allowing further investigation on the matter under

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Crl.R.P. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE -AI DATED 10.5.2007, TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER

ANNEXURE- AII DATED NIL-9-2008, TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.14812 OF 2008 IN C.C.NO.963 OF 2007, JMFC - I, THRISSUR

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE