V.N. Reji v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2008-06-20
Court Decision / Holding: The CrL.M.C. is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.N. Reji

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor and Sub Inspector of Ambalamedu Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

V.N. Reji, the sole accused in CC 873/1999 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery, seeks to quash Annexure A4, the additional charge sheet filed after a police investigation. The prosecution case alleges that on 25-5-1999, while partners in Suvarna Chitty funds, Reji took the de facto complainant’s pass book and cheque book, forged the other partner’s signature in cheque no. 337439, and collected Rs. 5,500 from the firm’s joint account. A final report was filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure A2), cognizance taken, and CC 873/1999 registered for an offence under Section 420 IPC. CW2 was examined and the trial was set to proceed when Annexure A3 stayed further proceedings on 11-9-2002 in view of a police investigation; subsequently, the police filed Annexure A4. The petitioner argues the police’s further investigation is illegal and without jurisdiction; even if warranted, it requires prior judicial sanction, supported by authorities such as Ramlal Narang and Mariam Rasheeda. The State counters that there is no bar to further investigation after a final report, and the court need only be informed; Annexure A3 was an appropriate stay. The High Court concluded there is no bar to further investigation in this scenario and dismissed the CrL.M.C. petition, allowing the investigation to continue without interference.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 420 of IPCSection 173(2) Cr.P.C.Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the trial court’s order allowing further police investigation is illegal and without jurisdiction. Since a final report was already filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., there is no necessity for further inquiry; even if warranted, such investigation requires prior court sanction. He places reliance on decisions including Ramlal Narang v. Union of India and Mariam Rasheeda v. State of Kerala, among others, to argue that the process was improperly invoked. He also notes that Annexure A3 stayed proceedings and that the accused was not heard before the stay, arguing procedural impropriety.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends there is no bar to further investigation after a final report; the court need only be informed of such investigation. Annexure A3 indicates a stay of proceedings pending further investigation, which is permissible under judicial pronouncements. The police’s continued inquiry and filing of Annexure A4 are legitimate to complete the investigation, and interference at this stage would hamper ongoing proceedings.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramlal Narang v. Union of India	AIR 1979 SC 1791	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner to support requirement of sanction for further investigation; court’s ruling relies on general principles rather than this case’s specific holding.
Mariam Rasheeda v. State of Kerala	1998 (1) KLT 835	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner; court references the argument without detailing the case’s holding or applying it directly.
State of Kerala v. Sreedharan	1993 (2) KLT 490	Mentioned Only	Cited in context of argument; no explicit treatment explanation by the court.
Vijayakumar v. Kamarudhin	1999(1) KLT 184	Mentioned Only	Cited as authority; court does not expressly adopt or distinguish its ratio.
State v. Gopakumar	1998(1) KLT 924	Mentioned Only	Referenced among authorities; no stated endorsement or reversal.
Lonappan Nambadan v. Dy. S.P	2002(3) KLT 213	Mentioned Only	Cited in passing as part of the authorities on further investigation; no explicit treatment.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3263 of 2004() ------------------------CC.873/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- V.N.REJI, AGED 34, S/O. NARAYANANKUTTY, VALLAYIL HOUSE, CHITRAPUZHA, IRUMPANAM P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.14245/04 IN CRL.M.C.3263/04 DISMISSED. 20-6-2008. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ---------------------------------------------CRL.M.C. No.3263 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------Dated, 20[th] June, 2008. ORDER The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.873/1999 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner now approached before this Court with a prayer to quash the additional charge sheet in Annexure A4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the de facto complainant and himself were partners of Suvarna Chitty funds and the allegation against the petitioner in the case is that on 25-5-1999, the petitioner took the pass book and cheque book of the firm and forged the signature of the de facto complainant, who is the other partner, in cheque No.337439 and collected Rs.5,500/- from the joint account maintained in the name of the firm. The police, after completing the investigation, filed a final report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. in crime No.40/99 of CRL.M.C.3263/04 ## **-:2:-** Ambalamedu police station. Annexure A2 is the final report. Upon Annexure A2, the court took cognizance and instituted C.C.No.873/1999 for the offence under section 420 of IPC. Pursuant to the summons issued from the court, the petitioner appeared before the court below and he was released on bail and subsequently a formal charge was framed under section 420 to which he pleaded not guilty which resulted in the further trial. Accordingly, CW2 was examined as PW-1 and the case was posted to 11-9-2002 for the examination of the de facto complainant. According to the petitioner, on that day, the learned Magistrate issued Annexure A3 order staying the trial of the case on the ground that the police had undertaken a further investigation in the matter. The further case of the petitioner is that, accordingly, after further investigation, the police had filed additional charge sheet,viz., Annexure A4 before the court below. It is the above additional charge sheet sought to be quashed in this proceedings. CRL.M.C.3263/04 ## **-:3:-** 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the trial court is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the counsel, the police had already conducted an investigation and filed Annexure A2 final report and there was no necessity for conducting a further investigation. Even if the circumstances warranted to have a further investigation, the same shall be conducted only with prior and appropriate sanction from the court below. In support of the above contention, the petitioner very much placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in **Ramlal Narang v. Union of India** (AIR 1979 SC 1791) and in **Mariam Rasheeda v. State of Kerala** (1998 (1) KLT 835); **State of Kerala v. Sreedharan** (1993 (2) KLT 490); **Vijayakumar v. Kamarudhin** (1999(1) KLT 184); **State v. Gopakumar** (1998(1) KLT 924) and also the decision reported in **Lonappan Nambadan v. Dy. S.P** . (2002(3) KLT 213). Thus, the learned counsel submitted CRL.M.C.3263/04 ## **-:4:-** that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate allowing the police for further investigation is absolutely illegal and the additional report is liable to be quashed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the prosecution. Annexure A3 was passed by the learned Magistrate on 11-9-2002 by which the request for stay of further proceedings was granted until further orders and the case was adjourned awaiting further investigation report. Though the above order was passed on 11.9.2002, the petitioner approached this court only during the month of November, 2004, after the expiry of two years from the date of Annexure A3 order and that too, after the filing of additional report. It is relevant to note that in this case, the trial is already commenced and further investigation was allowed during the midst of the trial and thereafter the police had also filed further report. Therefore, even if there is any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner, it is not proper on the part of this Court in interfering with the trial at this stage. CRL.M.C.3263/04 ## **-:5:-** 6. Going by the authorities, it can be seen that there is no bar for further investigation in a case where final report was already filed under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The judicial pronouncement further shows that what is required is that the court shall be kept informed of the further investigation undertaken by the police. In this case as evidenced by Annexure A3 order, a report was already filed before the court below stating that the further investigation was ordered by the City Police Commissioner and requested for stay of further proceedings in the case until further investigation report is filed. I am of the view that the requirement as declared by the judicial pronouncement is satisfied in this case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the further report filed by the police in crime No.40/99 of Ambalamedu police station and in C.C.No.873/1999 of the court below. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that before passing Annexure A3 order, the petitioner was not heard before staying the further proceedings. However, CRL.M.C.3263/04 ## **-:6:-** the petitioner did not approach this Court immediately after Annexue A3 order was passed but he preferred this Crl.M.C. only after filing the additional report. However, I am constrained to observe that if the further investigation was conducted beyond the scope of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and if any materials or evidence produced which are prejudicial to the interest of the accused/petitioner as it is against the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the same can be brought to the notice of the trial court upon which the trial court will take appropriate decision on merit of those issues. In the light of the above discussion, there is no merit in this Crl.M.C, and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but subject to the above observation. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** kvm/- CRL.M.C.3263/04 ## **-:7:-** kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order ## CRL.M.C.3263/04 ## **-:8:-** Dated: