AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crl. M.P. No. 7037/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court, Wadakkanchery. The complaint is in respect of the death of the petitioner''s daughter, Vasanthi. The Police, after investigation, referred the matter, against which, the petitioner filed a private complaint. There was a direction to exhume the body of the petitioner''s daughter and to conduct chemical analysis of the internal organs of the deceased. But the Magistrate, without waiting for the chemical analysis report, passed the impugned order, refusing to take cognizance of the offence on the ground that there is no sufficient material for taking cognizance. The order of the magistrate is impugned in this Criminal Revision Petition. I passed the following order in this Criminal Revision Petition on 31.10.2012:
In this case, I passed the following order on 19.9.2012:
The learned Public Prosecutor has produced a report of chemical analysis pursuant to the order dated 4.9.2012. Strangely, the analysis report is dated 11.9.2012, seven days after I passed the order. The order of the Magistrate itself pre-supposes having considered the chemical analysis report as well. I am at a loss to understand how after ordering a reinvestigation, after exhuming the body and sending internal organs for chemical analysis, anybody could have decided the matter finally without conducting the chemical analysis and looking into the chemical analysis report. From the way the matter has been investigated there is reason for suspicion regarding the manner of conducting the investigation. In the above circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor shall see that a competent officer files a detailed report explaining the matter. The same shall be filed within two weeks. Post after two weeks.
Pursuant to my order dated 19.9.2012, two reports have been produced before me, one by the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheruthuruthy Police Station, Thrissur and the second by the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Regional Chemical Examiners Laboratory, Kakkanad, Ernakulam. The Assistant Chemical Examiner states in his statement that it is because of pressure of work that there was delay in testing the internal organs of the deceased and forwarding the report. The report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police does not furnish the information called for by me. It merely says that, on investigation, it was revealed that the death of the complainant''s daughter, Vasanthi was due to disease. If the police could file a final report based on other evidence, there was absolutely no necessity to exhume the body of the deceased and send the internal organs for analysis by the Chemical Examiner. That being so, the report of the Sub Inspector of Police is totally unsatisfactory.
In the above circumstances, I direct the Director General of Police to file an affidavit explaining the conduct of the Police in this matter, which are clear from this order and the order dated 19.9.2012. The affidavit shall be filed within two weeks. Post after two weeks.'' Pursuant to the above order, affidavit has been filed. I am not at all satisfied with the affidavit filed. It is a mystery as to why, after exhuming the body for chemical analysis, without receipt of the chemical analysis report, the Police and the Magistrate decided to close the matter. But, at this point of time, all what I can do is to direct the Magistrate to restore the complaint to file and pass fresh orders after considering all the materials available including the chemical analysis report now filed and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Magistrate is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to reconsider the question of taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor, on the basis of the materials available on record, including the chemical analysis report now filed. Even if ultimately the Magistrate decides to take cognizance, the State Police Chief shall conduct an enquiry and take action against those who are responsible for the fiasco. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.