The defendant does not have an absolute right to seek more investigation, but the courts can intervene if the investigation is incomplete, unpleasant or malafide: Kerala HC

Judge A. Badharudeen I was considering an order of the Court of First Instance that dismissed a request in search of greater investigation by virtue of section 173 (8) of the CRPC.

The court said: “When analyzing the issue of the law on whether a defendant has the absolute right to seek more investigation, in fact, a defendant has no absolute right to seek more investigation or issue terms for investigation or say that the investigation will go in a particular way.”

The Court depended even more on the decision of the Apex court in Vinay Tyagi V Irshad Ali (2013), declared that a fresh or additional investigation can be ordered by leaving the present investigation aside when the investigation was a unjust, malafide, incomplete, unpleasant and influenced cousin and is influenced by a dirty game.

The court also said “When the ex -facie investigation is unfair, contaminated, bad, incomplete, bad the one that must be an investment. “

The accusation against the petitioner is that he forged two night powers by putting false signatures and thumb impressions and a false solvency certificate and produced it before the Department of Special Taxes as genuine documents in an auction to obtain license for Rrack Shop.

The crime was recorded by virtue of sections 465 (punishment for falsification), 468 (falsification for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using a genuine falsified document) and 420 (trap and inducing dishonestly delivery) R/W Section 34 (acts performed in the common intention) of the CPI.

It should be noted that FIR was registered in 2015 for crimes allegedly committed in 1993-94. The final report was presented in 2018.

The petitioner said he was representing as the power of the head of the de facto plaintiff and his husband to participate in the auction, and that the powers of lawyers were prepared by another person. It was stated that the beneficiaries of the auction were also the de facto plaintiff, her husband and the person who prepared the power of the lawyers. The petitioner also said that the crime was recorded after so many years to avoid income recovery procedures against property for not paying fees under the Abkari law.

The petitioner sought greater investigation arguing that it is a fundamental right to have a fair and fair investigation under articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. In addition, he trusted Vinay Tyagi (supra) Looking for more research.

In the facts of the case, the court indicated that more investigation is necessary to prove who produced the counterfeit documents. He pointed out that the case of the petitioner is that he was authorized to represent through the power of lawyers, while the accusation against him was that he lacked such authorization and had forged the power of lawyers. The court also pointed out that the crime was recorded after a delay of 22 years.

The court also clarified that the courts, other than the constitutional courts, can also order greater investigation by virtue of section 173 (8) of the CRPC in appropriate cases before the trial begins.

As such, the court allowed the petition and ordered to carry more investigations.

Petitioner Advisor: Advocates V Vinay, MS Aneer, Sarath Kp, Preith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar Cr, Ks Kiran Krishnan

Advisor for respondents: Mithun Baby John defenders, Nuharikrishna, Priya PK, Public Prosecutor Jibu TS

Case title: George Cyriac V State of Kerala

No case: Crl.mc no. 7443 of 2023

APPOINTMENT: 2025 LIVELAW (KER) 162

Click here to read/download order