Judgment :- Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. This interim application is filed by the petitioner in the above case. 2. Originally in the writ petition, the petitioner sought for writ of mandamus directing the State o Kerala to hand over investigation of crime No.59/11 of Kozhikode Town Police Station t Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). By interim order dated 27.9.2011, the High Court in th above matter decided to monitor the progress of the investigation of the case. 3. The Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as “SIT”) filed a report afte completion of the investigation. The report submitted by the SIT is kept in a sealed cove According to the petitioner, as it forms part of the records of the High Court, Rule 85 read wit 128 of Kerala High Court Rules provides entitlement of the petitioner to inspect the same an obtain copies of the said documents. In the absence of the records in question, not fallin within the ambit of Rule 90 of the High Court Rules, the petitioner is entitled for copy of th records i.e., the report which would enable the petitioner to assist the High Court to a large interest in arriving at a conclusion whether a fair and impartial investigation has bee conducted by the SIT or not. 4. The main writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation to find out the truth of th allegations contained in FIR No.59/11 of the said police station. When once SIT files forma report under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the competent Magistrate Court, there is no mor secrecy attached to the report, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed is the contentio of the petitioner. 5. According to the petitioner, large number of influential people are involved and the charge leveled against them are more serious, therefore, the scrutiny of the report in the light of th accompanying documents is highly essential to prevent miscarriage of justice, therefore, th petitioner seeks copies of the report and also the accompanying documents. 6. Per contra, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit through one Mr. Jaison K Abraham, member of Special SIT in Cr.No.59/11. 7. During the pendency of the above writ petition, when the above interim application came t be filed, according to the respondent-State, two sealed covers were submitted to the Court o 22.12.2011. 6. Per contra, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit through one Mr. Jaison K Abraham, member of Special SIT in Cr.No.59/11. 7. During the pendency of the above writ petition, when the above interim application came t be filed, according to the respondent-State, two sealed covers were submitted to the Court o 22.12.2011. In one cover, action taken report is submitted and the other cover contains origina case diary pertaining to the above said crime. The case was posted to several dates and o 6.3.2012, the petitioner sought for copy of the report and the accompanying documents. Bu the High Court directed the petitioner to file an application and accordingly, the presen application is filed. According to the first respondent – State, the petition is neither maintainabl nor the relief sought are sustainable on account of various reasons and facts which would b narrated hereinafter. 8. The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes submission of final report on completion investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Except communicating the action taken by th Investigating Officer to the informant, no other duty is cast on the investigating Officer. Unde Sub-section 5 of Section 173 Cr.P.C. it is within the option of the Investigating Officer to furnis copies of all or any of the documents to the accused. Other than this provision, there is n prescription for supply of either copies of the documents or copy of the report to a third party The petitioner being a third party, is not entitled to have copies of the records or the document is the contention of the State. 9. So far as submission of the case diary and the report before the Court, it was only for th purpose of reference and scrutiny by the Court. As a matter of fact, submission of thes documents in sealed covers cannot be treated as ‘filing’ of those documents before the Cou as contemplated under the Rules, therefore, the petitioner being an outsider cannot seek fo copies of the records and the accompanying documents. After filing the final report before th Magistrate, then such documents becomes part of records. They are not public documents therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed is the contention of the first responden State. 10. After filing the final report before th Magistrate, then such documents becomes part of records. They are not public documents therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed is the contention of the first responden State. 10. The first respondent further contends petitioner has no locus standi to file the above petitio and none of the Rules relied upon by the petitioner, i.e., Rules 85 and 128 of the Kerala Hig Court Rules are applicable to the facts of the present case and placing reliance is nothing bu misconception. 11. Reading of the High Court Rules along with Rule 173 of Cr.P.C would only manifest clarify the position that the petitioner cannot seek for copies of the report and documents a they are not filed or in the custody of the Court in the normal course, is the contention of th State. 12. Reading of Rule 90 refers to various items and the provisions speaks about the document which specially forms part of the record and it has no reference as to which does not form th part of the records. 13. In the absence of any of the documents now sought for being part of the records, th interim application itself is unsustainable and they seek for dismissal of the same. 14. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shekar Naphade arguing for the petitioner vehement contended that the present report is either a document under Section 164 Cr.P.C or a repo under Section 173 Cr.P.C. According to the learned Senior Counsel, provisions of Rule 90 o the Kerala High Court Rules does not take in its fold any of the documents now sought for b the petitioner, therefore, there is no impediment for issuing copies of the report and th accompanying documents. 15. As the allegations are against 21 important Government officials and when high profil persons are involved, unless the petitioner knows what the report and the accompanyin documents contain, he will not be able to assist the Court properly. When larger public interes is involved and when public accountability is the controversy, the application deserves to b allowed. By placing reliance on paragraphs 65, 69, 70, 71 & 72 in the judgment reported i (AIR 1982 SC 149), he prays for allowing the interim application. 16. When larger public interes is involved and when public accountability is the controversy, the application deserves to b allowed. By placing reliance on paragraphs 65, 69, 70, 71 & 72 in the judgment reported i (AIR 1982 SC 149), he prays for allowing the interim application. 16. As against this, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, took us through th prayer in the writ petition and para 8 of the counter. He also referred to a portion of the interim order dated 27.9.2011 at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. According to the learned Advocat General, the petitioner being not a complainant, not an accused, not a witness, how he coul seek or claim copies of the report of the investigation and the accompanying documents? Th only grievance in the writ petition seems to be that investigation is not proceeded properly therefore, the matter has to be referred to investigation by CBI. When the investigation is don by the investigation team which was constituted by the petitioner himself during his tenure a the Chief Minister, now he cannot suspect the competency of the investigation team Therefore, he contends that apart from the petitioner having no locus standi to file the presen application, the very Rules does not provide for issuance of copies of the documents as non of the documents are filed as part of the record in the writ petition. With these averments placing reliance on AIR 1994 (2) KLT 1017 : 1992 (4) SCC 305; 1997 (1) KLT 55; 2010 (4 SCC 513; 2005 (2) KLT 380, the learned Advocate General seeks for dismissal of th application. 17. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel arguing for the petitioner referred to Article 215 of th Constitution to contend as the Rules are framed by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution an when the Rules provide for inspection and issuance of copies, the Court has to follow the sai Rules and none of the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate General has an relevancy on the controversy in issue as the controversy is whether investigation is fair or no and not for issuance of copies of documents. 18. With these arguments at our command, we have gone through the relevant Rules as we as Section 173 Cr.P.C. 19. 18. With these arguments at our command, we have gone through the relevant Rules as we as Section 173 Cr.P.C. 19. It is not in dispute formant No.9 referred to above, is the formant in which copies of th documents have to be sought for. When the above writ petition came to be filed on 27.9.2011 the Bench expressed at paragraph 6 & 7 with reference to the SIT as under: “6. It may not be out of place to mention that this entire episode has generated a great deal o public debate on the functioning of various constitutional organs in the State of Kerala an more than one writ petition was filed seeking various reliefs touching some aspects of th episode or the other (the details of which are may not be necessary for the present) 7. It is also not out of place to mention that the petitioner herein is none other than the forme Chief Minister of the State of Kerala. The Special Investigation Team mentioned above wa constituted while the petitioner was heading the Government of the State of Kerala 20. It is not in dispute that the Officers in the SIT continue to be the same Officers right from the beginning till the end of the investigation. At para 11, the Bench observed as under: 11. In the circumstances, though we do not see any reason at this juncture to opine that th investigation is not progressing, we deem it appropriate that the progress of the case required to be monitored by this Court. We ma also place on record that during the course o hearing today the learned Advocate General made a statement that the investigation in th above mentioned case would be completed in the next 90 days and the final report unde Section 173 Cr.P.C would be filed before the appropriate Court. 21. Subsequently, on 22.12.2011, the present Bench at para 3 noticing the progress i investigation proceeded to say as under: 3. As on today, we note in all 129 witnesses were examined as against examination of 8 witnesses as on 27.9.2011. 21. Subsequently, on 22.12.2011, the present Bench at para 3 noticing the progress i investigation proceeded to say as under: 3. As on today, we note in all 129 witnesses were examined as against examination of 8 witnesses as on 27.9.2011. We also note that, in all 104 documents are seized as on today a against 56 documents that came to be seized on 27.9.2011 as per the memo filed by th Government Pleader and the statement of the Special Investigating Officer, only 5% of th investigation is to be completed, as 95% of the investigation is completed. According to him, 1 more witnesses from various parts of the State have to be examined and more document have to be seized. 22. At para 4, importance given to the investigation in question as submitted by the learne Advocate General is reflected, which reads as under: As per the submission of the learned Advocate General and also the details given in the Actio Taken Report, we note that till 24.11.2011, the Special Investigating Officer was holding th charge of the Thamarassery Sub Division and he was also in charge of this Specia Investigation, therefore, he was finding it difficult to attend to both the duties. As he is relieve of the duties of Thamarassery Sub Division, he can concentrate on the Special Investigatio entrusted to him. This is also evident from the progress made in the investigation as per the lis of dates and details of investigation. 23. Subsequently, final report was filed and it is relevant to mention that this Court felt appropriate that the progress of the case was required to be mentioned by the High Court. 24. So far as the investigation being handed over to CBI, it is the subject matter of the wr petition. So far as the present interim application, controversy is whether copy of the report an the accompanying documents could be given to the petitioner or not. 25. In the case of Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala reported in 1994 (2) KLT 1017, whil referring to Sections 238 & 239 Cr.P.C. this Court held that these two provisions are complete code in the matter of the procedure to be followed. 25. In the case of Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala reported in 1994 (2) KLT 1017, whil referring to Sections 238 & 239 Cr.P.C. this Court held that these two provisions are complete code in the matter of the procedure to be followed. It further held the question of an third party being permitted to take part in the proceedings while the Court considers th material on record in order to ascertain whether a charge should be framed or the accuse should be discharged, does not arise. 26. While referring to S.P. Gupta’s case reported in AIR 1982 SC 149, the Apex Cou observed that the Court must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approache the Court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit o political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to b abused by politicians and others. 27. We have gone through the judgments referred to by both the sides. We are not considerin the merits of the writ petition in this IA. We are only concerned with the relief sought in th interim application whether copies of final report and accompanying documents could b furnished to the petitioner at this stage. Section 173 Cr.P.C. reads as under: Report of the Police Officer on completion of investigation. (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) (i) as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating- (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Stat Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any by whom the information relating t the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Whether a superior officer of police has been appointed under Section 158, the repor shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, b submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct th officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation. (4) Whenever it appears from a report, forwarded under this section that the accused has bee released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such order of the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police office shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report- (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely the than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecutio proposes to examine as its witness. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to th sub-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in th interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of th statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies t be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnis to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnis to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (8) Notwithstanding in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respec of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains furthe evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or report regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of sub-section (2) to (6 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to report forwarded under sub-section (2). 28. The final report has to be filed by the Investigating Officer after completion of th investigation. Once the final report is filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate who ha jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, the entire report and the accompanyin documents enters public domain. It is for the Magistrate concerned to consider whether to hav copies of such report and documents supplied to such person who could be an accused, witness, complainant etc. Depending upon the locus standi of the applicant, how his presenc is relevant for the purpose of proceeding with the case, the concerned Magistrate can decid whether copies of such documents could be given to him or not. As of a right, the accuse does have a right to have copy of the entire charge sheet. 29. Now, the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the copies of the final repo and accompanying documents? 30. Apparently, the investigation is completed. Rule 85 of the Kerala High Court Rules reads as under: “85. Application for search:- A person desiring to make a search of the records of the Court of the purpose either of inspection or of obtaining copies of records, shall submit an application for the same as in Form No.8. Form No.8 (Rule 85) Form of Application for search of public records To, The Registrar, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. 31. This provides filing an application for search of records of the Court either for inspection o for obtaining copies of the records. 32. Form No.8 (Rule 85) Form of Application for search of public records To, The Registrar, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. 31. This provides filing an application for search of records of the Court either for inspection o for obtaining copies of the records. 32. Rule 128 of the Kerala High Court Rules, which specifically provides for filing an applicatio for certified copies in formant No.9, reads as under: 128. Application for copies: (1) Any person entitled to obtain a copy of any proceeding o document filed in or in the custody of the Court may present an application therefore as i Form No.9 setting out the name of the applicant, his position in the proceeding, if he is a part thereto and the description of the document of which copy is required. (2) Issue of Carbon or Photostat Copies:- Any party to the proceeding may, immediately afte the judgment or order is pronounced, apply orally to the Court for a carbon copy or Photosta copy thereof and if the Court so directs, a carbon copy or a Photostat copy duly certified, will b issued to the party on his making an application for an urgent copy under Rule 13 accompanied by the Charges required by Rule 138:) Provided that in cases where the State Government or the Central Government is a party, carbon copy/Photostat copy may be issued to the State Government or the Centra Government, as the case may be, by the office free of cost on receipt of a written requisition i Form 9A for the same which shall be entered and dealt within a separate register. (3) Copies of Judges’ minutes or of correspondence and other papers, not strictly judicial, w be granted only under the orders of the Court. Form No.9 (Rule 128) Copy of Application Form To, The Registrar, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. Sir, Please furnish me with certified copies of the documents mentioned herein. The description of the document applied for should be clearly given. Counsel for appellant/respondent 90. Prohibition regarding certain items: - Nothing in these rules shall entitle any person t inspect:- (i) the Judges’ notes or minutes; (ii) Correspondence confidential or not strictly judicial; (iii) autograph judgments; and (iv) registers of the Court. 33. Reading of all the three Rules would indicate that they refer to documents which specifical form part of the records of the Court. 33. Reading of all the three Rules would indicate that they refer to documents which specifical form part of the records of the Court. In order to become part of the records of the Court, th documents have to be filed or have to be in the custody of the Court in the usual course o business. As a matter of fact, so far as the final report and case diary or accompanyin documents now submitted in sealed covers, the same need not be filed before the Court so fa as the merit of the case is concerned. Para 11 of the order dated 27.9.2011 specifically refer to the fact that the Court wanted to monitor the progress of the investigation in order t appreciate the stand of the petitioner that the investigation was not progressing properly. In tha context, as per the directions of the Court, the status report was filed from time to time. From 23.9.2011 onwards, status reports were submitted. 34. If the status report was part of the court record in the above writ petition, there was no nee for the Investigating Officer to file it in a sealer cover. Reading of the entire order sheet date 27.9.2011 would indicate that the status report from time to time was filed in sealed covers on to substantiate before time the Court that the SIT was making progress in the investigation. was never intended to be part of the records. Rules 85, 90 and 128 of the Kerala High Cou Rules, refer only to documents which are part of the records. Therefore, status reports and th case diary etc. filed in sealed covers are not part of the records of the writ petition and they ar only intended for reference in order to convince the Court that the investigation is unde progress. 35. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for copies of the final repo and also accompanying documents. Once they enter the public domain as required unde Section 173 Cr.P.C, the parties are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrat concerned, seeking copies of the documents or the report and the jurisdictional Magistrate ca decide such application, if any, filed in accordance with the procedure contemplated. With these observations, the interlocutory application is dismissed.