This petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure- III order passed in C.M.P.No.9893/2009 in C.C.No.727/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kodungallur. The above case was filed u/ss.205, 468, 463, 471 r/w. 34 IPC against three accused. Subsequently, during trial, the Court altered the charge and framed a charge u/ss.468 & 471 r/w. 34 IPC. The evidence was recorded, in the meantime, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.9893/2009 for further investigation u/s.173(8) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate called a report from the Sub Inspector of Police, Mathilakom and closed the above Crl.M.P. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner approached this Court with this Crl.M.C.
2. The petitioner's case in C.C.No.727/2008 was that the accused in the above case transferred his 55 cents of land by forging the document. The police after detailed investigation, filed a final report and the trial is at the fag end. Pws 1 to 9 were examined. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. The accused were questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Annexure-III Crl.M.P for further investigation u/s.173(8) Cr.P.C.
3. Heard both sides. Before adverting to the argument advanced by both counsel, I may extract S.173(8) of Cr.P.C.:
“ 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.-
xxx xxx xxx (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections 92) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).”
According to Section 170 of Cr.P.C., if, upon an investigation, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to proceed against the accused, he shall file a report, as soon as it is completed, to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of a police report in the prescribed form. In this case, a report in the prescribed form was submitted before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kodungalloor. The trial of the case was already started. Prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P8. During the investigation, it is revealed that the signature and finger print obtained from the accused did not tally with the signature forwarded to Finger Print Laboratory, Thiruvananthapurm, which was returned to the concerned Magistrate. In the circumstances, realising the trouble of the prosecution case, the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate with Annexure-III petition.
4. Apex Court decision in Popular Muthiah v. State, represented by Inspector of Police [(2006) 7 SCC 296] held that when a power under sub-section (8) of section 173 is exercised, the court ordinarily should not interfere with the statutory powers of the investigating agency. The court cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency. Here, after filing Annexure-III petition, the learned Magistrate forwarded the petition to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mathilakom. He filed a
detailed report after enquiry, in which, he stated that there is nothing more to investigate than the final report. If that be the position, prima facie no material is produced before this Court to interfere in the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed according to the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal [1992 SCC (Crl) 426].
acd P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.