This petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexures E & F in C.C.No.727/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kodungallur, which was filed u/ss.205, 463, 468, 477 r/w.34 IPC. Petitioners are the accused 5 and 6 in the above case. Subsequently, during trial, the Court altered the charge and framed a charge u/ss.468 & 471 r/w. 34 IPC. The evidence was recorded. At that time, the defacto complaint, 6th respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.9893/2009 for further investigation u/s.173(8) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner approached this Court to quash Annexures-E and F.
2. The 6th respondent'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, which was forwarded to Sub Inspector of Police, Mathilakom and he reported that further investigation is not necessary.
3. Heard both sides. According to S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further investigation can be made by a police officer in charge of a police station. In this context, I may extract S.173 (8):
“ 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 (2) 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).”
If after completion of the 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 to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of a police report in the prescribed form. In this case, witnesses were examined by the 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 6th respondent approached the learned Magistrate with Annexure-E petition, which was returned by the S.I. on the ground that there is no reason to further investigation. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.
acd P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.