Kerala High Court
Kaladharan vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.1486 OF 2021(I)
PETITIONER/S:
KALADHARAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. PANGI, MALLANPARA HOUSE, PANTHALLUR,
PALLAM DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM
TALUK, NALLAYI P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 305
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SHRI.ALEKH THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR
RURAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 631
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
680 301
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.1486 of 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2021
Petitioner's son Shibin sustained grievous
injuries in a road traffic accident, when a tempo
traveller hit against his motorcycle on 27.02.2020
on the Anandapuram - Irinjalakkuda Road. The
Puthukkad Police registered Crime No.211 of 2020
arraying the driver of the tempo traveller as
accused. But, on completion of investigation,
Ext.P3 final report was laid deleting the driver
of the tempo traveller and instead, arraying
Shibin as accused. The offences alleged are under
Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 146 r/w
196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the
petitioner, the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the tempo traveller.
Shibin sustained serious injuries like, traumatic
W.P.(C) No.1486 of 2021
brain injury, diffused axonal injury and
acetabulum fracture on the right posterior
articular margin. The petitioner is aggrieved by
the manner in which the investigation was
conducted and Shibin arrayed as the accused.
Hence, the prayer for further investigation.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied
on the decision in State of Bihar and another v.
J.A.C Saldanna [(1980) 1 SCC 554] to contend that,
even after filing of the final report, a superior
police officer can, in appropriate cases, direct
further investigation.
3. It is to be noted that after filing of
final report, the jurisdictional magistrate has
taken cognisance and the case is now pending as
C.C.No.2437 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda. Being
so, Magistrate Court is best suited to consider
W.P.(C) No.1486 of 2021
the request for further investigation,
particularly so, since the relevant materials are
available in that court. The Honourable Supreme
Court, in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v.
State of Gujarat [(2019) 17 SCC 1], held that,
even after filing of final report and taking of
cognisance, the jurisdictional magistrate can, in
exercise of the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C,
order further investigation, provided the trial
has not commenced by framing of charges.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed
of, permitting the petitioner to submit the
application seeking further investigation before
the jurisdictional magistrate court within three
weeks. In such event, the learned magistrate
shall consider the application with reference to
the documents produced along with the final report
and take a reasoned decision. The framing of
W.P.(C) No.1486 of 2021
charge in C.C.No.2437 of 2020 shall be deferred
till the decision, as directed above, is taken.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/18.02.2021
W.P.(C) No.1486 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 211/2020
OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION DATED
3.3.2020
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED
FROM ELITE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
211/20 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
9.9.20 MADE TO RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
ALONG WITH RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
