AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.Haripal
Petitioner is the complainant in Crime No. 615/2012 of Panangad police station. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid as C.C. No. 724/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - VIII, Ernakulam. Now the petitioner submits that he has received summons in the case as CW1 and is supposed to give evidence tomorrow. But he understood that the Bank Manager who has been cited as CW14 is the successor-in office and if only the officer who had been in place in whose presence an amount of Rs.3,57,000/- was withdrawn by the accused using cheque number 662906 is cited and examined, the actual culprit can be identified and brought to book. So he has sought to issue a writ of mandamus or direction to the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation in the case. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice need not be sent against the 6th respondent.
I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
It is a crime of the year 2012 in which first final report was laid in 2015. Thereafter, complaining that the police did not investigate the case properly and the documents produced by the petitioner were not sent to court, he moved this Court with W.P.(C.) No. 31796/2017. That writ petition was allowed and by judgment dated 22.11.2018, this Court directed the then Station House Officer to conduct further investigation. Thus a supplementary final report was filed in 2020. Now the petitioner wants the Investigating Officer to conduct proper investigation.
As indicated earlier, already two rounds of investigation are over. May be because of the fact that the accused is a retired Sub Inspector, the petitioner is suspecting foul play in the matter. The present grievance of the petitioner is that CW14, who is the successor in office may be able to prove the statement of accounts, but if only the then officer is cited and examined, the prosecution will be able to identify the accused who had withdrawn such an amount on 26.08.2010.
It is true that the accused faces allegations under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. The specific case of the petitioner is that after availing a loan from the accused, he had repaid the same and still the accused was pestering and harassing him. If the petitioner feels that the then officer of the IDBI bank has to be examined, a representation can be given to the Magistrate and also cause the Assistant Public Prosecutor to file an additional witness list and facilitate the examination of the said witness. I have no doubt that if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider it on merits.
With the above observation, this writ petition is closed.