Latest News
Back
Document:
Kerala High Court held that no permission is required from the Court to conduct further investigation even after the commencement of trial in the case of MARIAM JOHN vs DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND STATE OF KERALA
The original case was registered against four people under sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegation made by the complainant was that these people had taken around Rs. 3,95,000 as a deposit on behalf of Aishwarya Finance and did not return the money back thereby committing the offense of cheating.
After the investigation was completed, the sub-inspector of Police at Vellarada Police Station filed the charge sheet bearing Crime No. 74/2010 against three persons under section 420 read with 34 of IPC, 1860. The petitioner was not included in that charge sheet as accused. The case was numbered as C.C.No. 378/2010 on 08.06.2010 by the Learned Magistrate. Thereafter, again charge sheet was filed on 06.06.2015 which included the petitioner as accused under sections 406, 420 read with 34 of IPC, 1860 and sections 45S and 58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act. After this, the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed an Ext. P4 report in the Magistrate’s Court stating that investigation in the case is still being conducted and prayed to the court that the proceedings may be stopped, which was granted by the Magistrate under Ext, P5 dated 17.09.2018.
The petitioner has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution for setting aside Ext. P5 to stop the proceedings and also to expedite the trial of the case. This petition was challenged on the following three grounds:
- Further investigation could not be conducted after the commencement of the trial,
- The reasons stated for conducting the further investigation are not sustainable in law,
- Further investigation to rectify the defects in the investigation already conducted is not permissible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no need for further investigation as many witnesses have already been examined and that further investigation could not be conducted after the trial has been commenced.
The court, hence held that even without the permission from the court, investigating officer has the power to conduct a further investigation even after the commencement of the trial.
Document:
