AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice N.K. Balakrishnan
Petitioners are A4 to A7 in C.C.93/2007. A private complaint was filed by the first respondent alleging offences under Secs. 167, 217 and 218 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 120B of IPC. It is stated that the daughter of the complainant had filed a complaint against accused Nos. 4 to 7 (petitioners herein) alleging offences under Sec. 452, 498A, 323, 341, 511 of 363, 506(11) and 379 r/w 34 of IPC. After investigation, a final report was filed in that case. It is stated that the defacto complainant therein, (daughter of the first respondent herein) had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for conducting further investigation in the matter alleging improper or partisan investigation. That petition was allowed and further investigation was ordered. C.M.P. Nos. 686/2005, 1852/2006 are stated to be the petitions filed for that purpose. After conducting further investigation a final report was filed; cognizance was taken and process was issued against the petitioners and that case is now stated to be pending before the learned Magistrate.
First respondent herein, who is the father of the complainant in the earlier case has filed this private complaint stating that the witnesses in the earlier case were not properly questioned. The investigation was perfunctory and so the petitioners have committed the offence as mentioned above.
Sri. Martin Jose, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the petitioners (accused in the main case filed by the first respondent''s daughter) are concerned no offences under Secs. 167, 217 or 218 would lie since those are the offences which can if at all be alleged only against A1 to A3, the police officials. The allegation is that these petitioners had conspired with A1 to A3-the police officials, to have the investigation conducted in a perfunctory manner.
The question whether the investigation conducted in the case was proper or perfunctory is a matter to be ultimately decided by the court where the main case, the case charge sheeted by the police, is filed, and that can be done only after the conclusion of the trial. For the improper conduct of investigation, petitioners who are the accused in the main case, cannot be fastened with any criminal liability, the learned counsel submits.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel that, in fact, the respondent herein, who has filed this complaint is only one of the witnesses in the main case. The complainant there in, though she is the daughter of the respondent herein, has not come forward with allegation of any improper investigation or that the petitioners had conspired with the police officials to have the investigation done in a slip-shod manner.
Learned counsel for the first respondent has not turned up. Though the case underwent adjournments for hearing the respondent as well, the respondent''s counsel is still absent. In the light of what is stated above, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case is quashed. But, it is made clear that if, after the trial, the learned Magistrate finds that there was deliberate laches on the part of the Investigating Officers in producing sufficient material before the court and that there was deliberate attempt to undermine the course of justice, it will be open to the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders at that time.
With this observation, this criminal revision petition is allowed. Further proceedings against these petitioners in C.C. No. 93/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Pathanamthitta is quashed.