IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 17.08.2009 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. No.33401 of 2007 P.Chinnasamy ... Petitioner vs. 1. State rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam, Coimbatore District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Avinasipalayam P.S., Coimbatore. ... Respondent Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayan, for Mr.S.Jayakumar For respondents : Mr.Paul Noble Devakumar, Government Advocate. O R D E R The petitioner seeks for a direction to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No.202 of 2007, pending on the file of the respondent herein, to any other competent police officer. 2. Based on the complaint, dated 01.11.2007, lodged by the petitioner, a councilor representing 5th ward of Pongalur Panchayat Union, with the allegation that he participated in a peaceful agitation called for by the political party to which he is affiliated to and enraged at that, the accused, who is an MLA belonging to rival political party, came to the office of the petitioner along with some unidentified persons and abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences; a case in Crime No.202 of 2007 came to be registered against the accused under Sections 147 and 506 (ii) IPC. read with Sec.3(1)(X) of the the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and now, it is reported that, after completion of the investigation, the case has been closed as 'mistake of fact'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant and the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. were not examined by the respondent police nor their statements recorded. Though it is stated in the counter that two witnesses were examined with reference to the occurrence, they are not the real witnesses. Since the proposed accused happens to be an M.L.A. belonging to the ruling party, the respondent police hastily proceeded to conclude the investigation and close the case as mistake of fact. Further, one of the penal provisions registered against the accused pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the measures and procedural aspects prescribed in the Rules, in particular Rules-6 and 12, have not been adhered to while conducting investigation; therefore, since the investigation conducted is biased one, a fresh investigation may be ordered to be done by a competent police officer other than the respondents police into the allegations made in the complaint. Learned counsel also submitted that even though the investigation of the case is said to have been concluded way back in 1997, neither refer notice has been served so far nor a copy of the charge sheet furnished to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, by filing counter affidavit, submitted that, on the strength of the complaint lodged on 01.11.2007, the case was registered against the ruling party MLA concerned and consequently, several witnesses were examined and their statements recorded. Admittedly, the complainant belongs to a rival political party and only to wreck personal vengeance, he preferred a false complaint, which was duly investigated into and since no offence was made out, the case was closed as mistake of fact on 09.11.2007. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and carefully considered the submissions made on either side. The Investigating Officer, after registration of the case, took up investigation, examined the witnesses and collected materials and ultimately, by concluding the case as mistake of fact, filed final report. The correctness of such conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer cannot be gone into by this Court. The petitioners may be having wealth of materials to substantiate the allegations against the accused and if so, they are always at liberty to adduce the same before the Judicial Magistrate concerned by way of filing private complaint. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum by filing private complaint, if he is so advised. Since it is stated that so far, the petitioner has not been furnished with refer notice/copy of the charge sheet, the respondents are hereby directed to serve the same to the petitioner within a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if such notice/copy of the charge sheet is not furnished to him already. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar JI. To 1. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam, Coimbatore District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Avinasipalayam P.S., Coimbatore. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 CC to Mr.S.Jayakumar,Advocate,SR.39131 Crl.O.P. No.33401/2007. MDR(CO) EM/7.9.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/