AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 215 wordsDr. Kauser Edappagath, J
Heard Sri. Rajiv Nambisan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.2051/2015 of Perumbavoor Police Station. After investigation, Ext.P4 final report has been filed. Dissatisfied with the final report, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 application for further investigation before the trial court. It is pending consideration.
The learned Prosecutor Sri. Prasanth submits that the investigating officer has also filed an application before the trial court seeking further investigation. However, as the charge has already been framed, the trial court has not passed any order. Since the defacto complainant as well as the investigating officer feels that further investigation is necessary, I am of the view that the prayer sought for can be allowed.
The learned Prosecutor submits that since the amount involved exceeds ₹1 crore, the investigation has to be carried out by District Crime Branch. Hence, the 3rd respondent is directed to hand over the entire case records to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch (C-Branch), Aluva, who has been suo motu impleaded as additional 8th respondent. The additional 8th respondent shall conduct further investigation and file final report in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.