Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian dismissed an appeal challenging the refusal to order further investigation into a 2019 assault case registered at Tirur Police Station. While upholding the earlier decision, the Court directed the State Police Chief to instruct investigating officers in criminal cases to notify the de facto complainants or their legal heirs whenever an accused named in the FIR is removed during investigation. The Bench observed that, as the case was at the trial stage, any concerns regarding omitted offenders could be addressed through evidence before the trial court.

The matter originated from a 2019 criminal incident registered at Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The writ petitioner, who is the legal heir of the injured person, approached the Court seeking a direction for further investigation. It was contended that the initial investigation was incomplete and improperly conducted, resulting in a final report that allegedly omitted key individuals who had been named in the First Information Report. The petitioner asserted that the exclusion of certain accused persons and the failure to investigate the alleged role of another individual related to the injured indicated a serious lapse on the part of the investigating agency.

Also Read: Can State Appeal in CBI-Prosecuted Cases When Probe Began with State Police? Supreme Court Leaves Question Open, Allows CBI Plea in Raipur Murder Case

The respondents, including the State and the Station House Officer, opposed the request for further investigation. They maintained that the investigation had been duly completed and that the case had reached the trial stage. The Bench heard both sides and examined the available records, including the submissions concerning the alleged omissions and procedural deficiencies. The Court noted that the grievance pertained to the removal of certain names from the list of accused without notice to the complainant or her family. The provisions referred to in the judgment included Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the trial court to proceed against any additional persons if evidence at trial discloses their involvement in the offence.

The Court observed that “the matter pertains to an incident of the year 2019” and that “from the rival contentions advanced, it is evident that the investigation in the case has been completed, and the case is now ripe for trial.”

It noted that “the main grievance of the appellant, who is the daughter of the injured in the said case, is that, though the First Information Statement was given narrating the true facts of the incident and naming the assailants who were previously known to the injured, some of those assailants were exonerated by the Police, and were omitted from the array of the accused in the final report.”

The Bench stated that “during the course of the trial, the appellant, being a witness, will certainly have an opportunity to adduce evidence regarding all the persons who, according to her, participated in the commission of the offence.” It further added that “if such evidence is brought on record and the trial court is satisfied that any person, other than those already arrayed as accused, has also taken part in the commission of the offence, the court is well empowered under law to proceed against such persons in accordance with Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).”

Before concluding, the Bench pointed out that “the investigating authorities had not issued any notice to the defacto complainant or his legal heirs, intimating them of the fact of removal of an accused, who was named in the FIR, from the list of accused in the final report.” It observed that “such inaction on the part of the investigating authorities would cause prejudice to the defacto complainant since he would lose an opportunity to take remedial action against the removal of an accused who was named in the FIR.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Directs Total Ban On Plastic And Synthetic Kumkum At Sabarimala; Orders Immediate Clean-Up Of Erumeli Stream, Public Advisory To Pilgrims

The Court directed: “We therefore, direct the State Police Chief to issue necessary instructions to the investigating authorities to promptly issue notices to the defacto complainants or their legal heirs whenever a person named as an accused in the FIR is removed from the list of accused during the course of an investigation.”

“The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Secretary (Home Department), Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, for onward transmission to the State Police Chief.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Shri. Abdul Khader Kunju S., Shri. A. Al Fayad
For the Respondents: Shri. K.A. Anas, Government Pleader

Case Title: Re: State of Kerala and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:84498
Case Number: W.A. No. 2557 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian