Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J. has directed the State Police Chief to issue instructions to Investigating Authorities to give notices to de facto complainants or their legal heirs whenever an accused in the FIR is removed from the list of accused during the course of an investigation. The ruling came while dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant against judgment dated 29-09-2025 wherein a writ petition filed to seek further investigation in a case under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), was dismissed.
Background:
The appellant was the daughter of the injured in an incident of 2019. In the FIR, she had named the assailants who were known to the injured, but some of them were exonerated by the police and were omitted from the array of the accused in the final report without any justifiable reason. She submitted that the investigation was conducted in a perfunctory and improper manner, ending in a final report which exonerated some of the principal assailants who had actively participated in the offence. The police allegedly failed to properly investigate the role of the son born in the first marriage of the injured, who actively took part in the commission of the offence, though not mentioned in the FIR. She contended that the final report was filed in such a manner so as to facilitate the actual assailants to escape from the clutches of law.
She had filed a writ petition seeking directions to conduct further investigation into the said crime. The case is presently pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Tirur, and therefore, she urged that the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petition seeking further investigation was liable to be interfered with.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the investigation of the said case was completed, and the case was presently at the stage of trial. The Court observed that during the trial, the appellant, being a witness, could adduce evidence regarding all the persons who had participated in the commission of the offence. If the Trial Court was satisfied that any person, other than those already arrayed as accused, had also taken part, the Court was empowered to proceed against such persons in accordance with Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’). The Court held that in such circumstances, direction for further investigation was not warranted.
The Court also noted that the Investigating Authorities had not issued any notice to the de facto complainant or his legal heirs, informing them of the removal of an accused named in the FIR from the list of accused in the final report. The Court observed that although it was not applicable in the present case, such inaction on the part of the Investigating Authorities would cause prejudice to the de facto complainant since he would lose an opportunity to take remedial action against such removal. Therefore, the Court directed the State Police Chief to issue necessary instructions to the Investigating Authorities to promptly issue notices to the de facto complainants or their legal heirs whenever a person named as an accused in the FIR is removed from the list of accused during an investigation.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ appeal finding no reason to interfere with the decision of the Single Judge.
[Shareena v. State of Kerala, WA No. 2557 of 2025, decided on 06-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Abdul Khader Kunju S., A. Al Fayad, Advocates.
For the Respondents: K.A. Anas, Government Pleader.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
