ORDER : (A. Badharudeen, J.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ for short), by the sole accused in S.C.No.1027/2023 on the files of the Court of Sessions, Manjeri, seeking the following prayers: “I) Quash Annexure:A1 Final Report in S.C.No.1027/2023 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Manjeri Division. II) To pass an order directing the second respondent to conduct a further investigation in Crime No.256/2023 of Vazhakkad Police Station.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents. 3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the accused. The specific allegation is that the accused, who is none other than the husband of the victim, married the victim on 16.07.2010, as per religious ceremonies. While living as husband and wife, the victim noticed the illicit relationship of the accused with other ladies and she informed the same to the parents, siblings and neighbours. That apart, she informed the same to one Arif Yasin, a friend of the accused, through WhatsApp. The above said Arif Yasin watched the activities of the accused and when the accused came to know about this, he quarreled with the victim and she was forced to leave the matrimonial home one week before the occurrence. Before that, there was a quarrel between the accused and the victim at about 6 am on 01.04.2023 and the 2nd witness intervened and cooled the situation. While so, at about 3.30 hours on 02.04.2023, while the victim was sitting in the work area of the house of the 9th witness, and witness Nos.1 and 5 moved towards her house at Vazhakkad for eating Suhoor before Ramzan fasting, the accused, because of rivalry, with intention to do away with the victim, slapped her on the right side of her face near the eye by using his hand, caught hold on her hair, and hit her forehead on the wall. Thereby the victim became unconscious. Later, the accused covered the nose and mouth of the victim by using a shawl and murdered her between 4 hours and 4.47 hours. Thereby the victim became unconscious. Later, the accused covered the nose and mouth of the victim by using a shawl and murdered her between 4 hours and 4.47 hours. Thus the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 4. At the time of admission hearing, one cardinal point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, the investigation of this grave crime of murder had been conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, against the mandate of Annexure 3 Circular No.16/2018 issued by the Director General of Police, as on 12.06.2018, modifying ‘the grave crime list’, incorporating various offences and according to the learned counsel, offence of 302 of IPC is a very grave crime and as per this Circular, the investigation is to be carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Superintendent of Police. Since the investigation had been completed in this crime without obeying the circular, the same is vitiated and therefore, the matter would require further investigation by higher officials in tune with the mandate of the circular. It is argued further that as per Section 4 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KP Act’ for short), the Police Officer shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, perform the functions enlisted in (a) to (s). It is pointed out that as per Section 4(n) of the KP Act, it is the duty of a police officer to obey and execute lawfully all lawful commands of competent authorities and official superiors. Therefore, Annexure 3 Circular should have been obeyed by the Investigating Officer in this crime and in view of Section 4(n) of the KP Act, there is violation of statutory prescription. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that even though Annexure 3 Circular provides as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the investigation done by the Sub Inspector of Police could not be held as illegal for the said reason alone. It is true that as per Annexure 3, it has been mentioned that the ‘Grave Crimes’ normally are to be investigated, at least, by an Inspector level officer. But, the DPCs are free to co-opt senior officers as and when they feel that such investigation can bring in good results and that the Police Department will have also taken care of certain serious offences which have to be investigated by Dy.SsP/ASsP. But, the DPCs are free to co-opt senior officers as and when they feel that such investigation can bring in good results and that the Police Department will have also taken care of certain serious offences which have to be investigated by Dy.SsP/ASsP. Now the questions that fall for consideration are; 1) Whether the Circular in the form of Annexure 3 is an addition to the statutory provisions of Cr.P.C or the same has an overriding effect over provisions of Cr.P.C.? 2) Whether the investigation conducted by a Sub Inspector of Police in relation to a grave crime of murder is vitiated and thereby the entire investigation is to be held as non-est? 6. As per Annexure 3 Circular, the Director General of Police, as on 12.06.2018, modified the grave crime list, incorporating various offences, and as per the list, offence under Section 302 of IPC is a very grave crime. On perusing Annexure 3 Circular, it has been provided that as directed earlier, ‘Grave Crimes’ reported within the jurisdiction of a Police Station having SI SHO, will be investigated by a team led by the SI SHO under close and day to day supervision of the Dy.SP concerned. However, it is up to the DPC/Range IGP/Zonal ADGP to entrust such a case to another competent officer of rank of a Dy.SP. [This arrangement shall be continued till the Police Department brings in Inspector SHOs in all the Police Stations]. 7. As per Annexure 3 Circular, it has been provided further as under: “In Inspector SHO Police Station, such crimes shall be investigated by the Inspector SHO by taking the help of Crime Division of the Police Station headed by an SI. Part investigation can be given to the Crime Division as per law.” 8. It is true that as per G.O.(MS) 150/2018 dated 29.09.2018, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, remaining 268 police stations in Kerala were upgraded to Circle-Inspector-manned SHO police stations. In the same Government Order, it has been clarified that the Sub Inspector of Police holding the charge of SHO shall have to continue as SHOs till Circle Inspector would join as SHOs. 9. In the same Government Order, it has been clarified that the Sub Inspector of Police holding the charge of SHO shall have to continue as SHOs till Circle Inspector would join as SHOs. 9. Coming to Section 154 of Cr.P.C., when an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced in writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. 10. As per Section 156 of Cr.P.C., any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable cases which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. As per Section 156(2) of Cr.P.C., no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this Section to investigate. 11. Thus it appears that as per Section 156 of Cr.P.C. the police officer in charge of a police station, ie., the Station House Officer may investigate any cognizable cases and there is no discrimination in between the rank of the officer under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. It is true that for administrative convenience, Annexure 3 Circular was issued, which has been extracted hereinabove. That does not mean that an investigation done by an officer, who is not the officer coming under Annexure 3 Circular, is non-est. As per Annexure 3 Circular itself, it has been made clear that in Circle-Inspector-manned SHO police station, such crimes shall be investigated by the Inspector SHO by taking the help of Crime Division of the Police station headed by a Sub Inspector of Police. Part investigation can be given to the Crime Division as per law. Thus the circular, in fact, permits the investigation by the Circle-Inspector-manned SHO Police Station regarding investigation of a grave crime. Part investigation can be given to the Crime Division as per law. Thus the circular, in fact, permits the investigation by the Circle-Inspector-manned SHO Police Station regarding investigation of a grave crime. In the instant case, the learned Public Prosecutor produced a report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, as per which, it was submitted that the aforesaid crime was initially registered U/s.174 Cr.PC on 02.04.2023 and subsequently the Section was altered to 302 IPC on 03.04.2023. During that time, Inspector of Police was not posted at Vazhakkad Police Station. Hence the then Sub Inspector of Police, Vazhakkad was directed to hold the full additional charge of Station House Officer of Vazhakkad Police Station vide DD No.260/2023/MM dtd 14.02.2023. Since the Sub Inspector of Police was entrusted the full additional charge of the aforesaid Police station, he being the Station House Officer, investigated the aforesaid crime under the supervision of the then Sub Divisional Officer, Kondotty and submitted charge sheet before the Court concerned. 12. Thus in the instant case, the Sub Inspector of Police who held the charge of SHO during the period of investigation conducted investigation in tune with the mandate of Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C., and the same is perfectly legal and Annexure 3 Circular would not stand in the way by making the investigation of a serious crime done by the Sub Inspector being Station House Officer of the Police Station as non-est. That apart the investigation done by the Station House Officer is protected from questioning under Section 156(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, Annexure 3 Circular or any Circulars would not supersede the statutory provisions under Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C. Similar is the position with regard to the provisions of the KP Act, if the same is derogatory to the provisions of Cr.P.C. 13. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 4 of the KP Act, It is relevant to note that as per Section 4 of the KP Act, the police officer shall, subject to the provisions of the Police Act, perform the functions, viz., (a) to (s) and as per Section 4(n) of the KP Act, it is the duty of a police officer to obey and execute lawfully all lawful commands of competent authorities and official superiors. However, that does not mean that in the instant case, the Sub Inspector of Police, who held the post of Station House Officer, has done anything in disobedience to the lawful commands of the superior. It is relevant to note further that as per Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C., the Police-in-charge of a police station, ie., the Station House Officer, is authorised to investigate any cognizable cases, and in such view of the matter, Section 4(n) of the KP Act read along with Annexure 3 Circular would not stand in the way of investigation to be carried out by the Sub Inspector of Police to hold the same as illegal. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.