Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala and Alexander @ George Alexander and George s/o Alexander

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-24
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned order is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 173(8) CrPC. An officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police shall conduct the further investigation and submit the final report before the Court to ensure fair and transparent proceedings.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed; impugned order set aside; directions for further investigation issued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Raveendran Nair

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecution
Alexander @ George Alexander s/o George
George s/o Alexander

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M.P. Madhavankutty
• Sri. Gokul Das V.V.H.
• Smitha Pillai

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Raveendran Nair, is the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 558/2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kottayam. Crime No. 940/2015 of Kottayam East Police Station was registered against the first accused (in-custody or not specified) and his son-in-law for alleged mischief causing damage to the petitioner’s property, including a damaged pipeline, electrical line, TV cable, telephone cable, and plants, with an estimated loss of Rs. 25,000. The petitioner sought further investigation under section 173(8) CrPC after the final report was laid, challenging the magistrate’s dismissal of the petition. The core dispute centers on a subsequent statement given by the petitioner (Annexure A5) which, according to him, Dilutes his initial version by reducing the claimed loss to Rs. 2,000 and implicating the son-in-law’s role. The magistrate had indicated that further investigation would serve no purpose and that the petitioner could pursue other remedies; the High Court, however, finds the record shows possible irregularities in the investigation. Relying on the need to pursue truth and real justice, the High Court sets aside the impugned order, directing a new investigation by an officer not below the rank of Inspector under section 173(8) CrPC to accelerate a fair, transparent inquiry and submit a final report.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 427 read with Section 34 IPCSection 173(8) CrPCSection 319 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the additional statement (Annexure A5) dilutes his original version and casts doubt on the investigation’s fairness. The 173(8) CrPC petition must be allowed to ensure a fair, truth-seeking inquiry. Since civil proceedings and commission reports indicate substantial damages, the investigation should not be foreclosed merely due to later statements that could be fallible or motivated. The petitioner emphasizes the prime objective of a fair investigation and real justice, citing Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi to justify further inquiry when required.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the additional statement undermines the original narrative and that the magistrate properly concluded further investigation would be unproductive, suggesting the petitioner can pursue other remedies. They contend the investigation should not be reopened to delay trial and that the existing evidence and reports suffice to proceed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others	2004 (5) SCC 347	Positive	Cited to support the principle that further investigation can be ordered to uncover truth and achieve real and substantial justice, even if it causes delay, thereby endorsing a thorough inquiry.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 7669 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CMP NO.2427/2016 IN C.C.NO.558/2015 OF JFCM-I, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.940/2015 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** ## **------------------------** ## **RAVEENDRAN NAIR** **S/O.KESHAVAN NAIR, SAYANDHANAM HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN: 686 004.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. SMT.SMITHA PILLAI** **RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:** **------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. ALEXANDER @ GEORGE ALEXANDER S/O.GEORGE, KATTIL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM 686001.** **3. GEORGE S/O.ALEXANDER, KATTIL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7669 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)'**|**ANNEXURES**| |---|---| |**-----------------------**|| |**ANNEXURE-A1:**| **TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT FURNISHED**| ||**BY THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.940/2015 OF KOTTAYAM**| ||**EAST POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2:**| **TRUE COPY OF SCENE MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO.940/2015 OF**| ||**KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE-A3:**| **TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.940/2015 OF**| ||**KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE-A4:**| **TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF CW2 IN ANNEXURE-A3 FINAL**| ||**REPORT IN CRIME NO.940/2015 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE**| ||**STATION DATED 15.9.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE-A5:**| **TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN**| ||**C.C.NO.558/2015 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS**| ||**MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTTAYAM (CRIME NO.940/2015 OF**| ||**KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION) DATED 20.9.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE-A6:**| **TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF CW3 IN C.C.NO.558/2015**| ||**BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,**| ||**KOTTAYAM (CRIME NO.940/2015 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE**| ||**STATION) DATED 15.8.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE-A7:**| **TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION**| ||**DATED 30.8.2016 IN C.C.NO.558/2015 BEFORE THE**| ||**JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTTAYAM.**| |**ANNEXURE-A8:**| **TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.9.2016 IN C.M.P.NO.2427**| ||**OF 2016 IN C.C.NO.558/2015 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST**| ||**CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTTAYAM.**| |**ANNEXURE-A9:**| **TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 17.8.2015 IN**| ||**O.S.NO.570/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,**| ||**KOTTAYAM DATED 17.8.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE-A10:**| **TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.570/2015**| ||**ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED**| ||**19.8.2015.**| ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** ## **-----------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7669 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of November, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.The petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C. No.558 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kottayam. At his instance, Crime No.940 of 2015 of Kottayam East Police Station was registered alleging offence punishable under section 427 read with 34 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 14.8.2015 at 12 p.m., the 1[st] accused in the aforesaid case along with his son-in-law committed mischief in the property of the petitioner using an earth mover and destroyed the pipe line, electric line, T.V. cable, telephone cable, flower pots and plants and thereby caused a loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Investigation was conducted Crl.M.C.7669/2016 2 and final report was laid before court. Aggrieved by the findings in the final report, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said petition was dismissed by the court below. The same is under challenge. 3.The controversy revolves around a subsequent statement given by the petitioner before the Investigating officer. The statement which has been produced as Annexure A5 dilutes the version of the petitioner to a substantial extent. The petitioner, in his subsequent statement is alleged to have stated in unequivocal terms that the compensation assessed by him earlier at Rs. 25,000/- is not correct and the loss is only to the tune of Rs.2000/- According to the petitioner , the son-in-law of the accused had a role to play and he was excluded from the array of the accused with malafide motive . Crl.M.C.7669/2016 3 4.The learned Magistrate took note of the additional statement of the petitioner and concluded that no purpose will be served even if further investigation was ordered. According to the learned Magistrate, the de facto complainant can resort to other remedies . In so far as the omission of the son-in-law and the JCB driver is concerned, the court below took the view that section 319 of the Code can be invoked, if at a later stage their roles are revealed. Holding so the application was dismissed. - 5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public prosecutor . 6.It appears from the impugned order that the court below was persuaded to dismiss the application mainly on the ground that the additional statement furnished by the petitioner would undermine his present case. I have perused the records. Annexure 5 additional Crl.M.C.7669/2016 4 statement is dated 20.9.2015 . However, the petitioner has produced copy of the plaint dated 17.8.2015 in O.S. No. 570 of 2015 filed by him before the Court of the Munsiff, Kottayam. Annexure A10 is the commission report dated 19.8.2015. In the plaint, the petitioner has claimed damages to the tune of Rs 75,000/-. Further in the commission report , extensive damages caused to his property has been noted by the commissioner advocate. If that be the case, it is quite far fetched to believe that the petitioner would give a statement diluting his own version after the filing of the civil suit for damages and after the filing of the commission report. This raises a lot of suspicion in the probity of the investigation conducted. By that benchmark, I am of the considered view that the complaint of the petitioner that the investigation has been unfair cannot be ignored. The petitioner also has Crl.M.C.7669/2016 5 a case that prime witnesses have not been questioned by the Investigating officer. 7.As observed in **Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others [** 2004 (5) SCC 347] the prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. The fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. 8.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing that the investigation conducted by the investigating officer has not been fair. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 173 (8) of the Crl.M.C.7669/2016 6 Code. An officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police shall conduct the further investigation. Necessary orders shall be passed to expedite the investigation fairly and transparently and to submit the final report before Court . The petition is disposed of . **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps