This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking further investigation and also take appropriate action against the de facto complainant for giving false evidence under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent herein, Valiyathura police has registered a case as Crime No.1301/12 of that police station against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure A Final report was filed against the petitioner and that was taken on file as C.C.No.3588/2013 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, No-II, Thiruvananthapuram and the case is now pending before that court. In the final report, three witnesses were shown as eye witnesses and all these witnesses have filed Annexure E & F affidavit stating that they have not made any statement before the investigating officer. So, it is necessary to direct further investigation and to take action against the de facto complainant for filing a false case as the entire allegations are false. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:
“To conduct a further investigation in the above case after staying all further proceedings in C.C.No.3588/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram and to take appropriate action against the de fecto complainant, who has given false F.I. Statement”
3. On going through the allegations, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the final report filed, three eye witnesses were mentioned and two of the eye witnesses have submitted Annexure E & F affidavit stating that they have not given any statement before any police officer and they have not seen the incident. So, under the circumstances, the real nature of the incident has to be brought out, for which purpose, further investigation is required.
5. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the affidavit of the alleged witnesses cannot be considered by this court at this stage, as it is a matter to be considered at the time of trial by the magistrate by evaluating the evidence given by those witnesses.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Valiyathura police has registered a crime as Crime No.1301/12 against the petitioner and another alleging offence under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is shown as first accused in that case. It is also an admitted fact that apart from the petitioner, there are two other accused persons arrayed as accused as accused Nos.2 and 3. After investigation, Annexure A final report was filed against the petitioner and two others and the case was taken on file as C.C.3588/2013 under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Now, petitioner had produced two affidavits alleged to have been sworn to by the alleged eye witnesses shown in the final report where they have stated that they have not seen the incident and they have not given any statement before the police. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, this court cannot now consider the versions mentioned by the witnesses by a way of affidavit before this court as that is a matter to be considered by the trial court when they were examined before that court. Further, ultimately if the trial court found that it is a false case, the accused can insist for taking action against the de facto complainant and the magistrate can take appropriate action against the de facto complainant if it is found that it is a false case foisted by the de facto complainant against the petitioner and others. So, under the circumstances, I don't think that there is any necessity for a further investigation to be conducted in this matter as the court itself can consider those matter at the time of trial and pass appropriate orders. So, under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief mentioned in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed leaving open the right of the petitioner to raise all his contentions raised by him in this petition before the trial court at the time of trial.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge