IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21.1.2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.R.C.No.585 of 2004 D.Sri Latha .. Petitioner /Complainant Vs. 1. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai-1. 2.M.T.Ramamoorthy 3.V.M.Parthasarathy 4.S.Paramasivam .. Respondents/Accused 1 to 3 Prayer:- Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29.1.2004 made in C-1, Crime No.456 of 2003 in B.FIR.No.457 of 2003 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam For Respondents : Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar G.A(Crl.Side) -R1 O R D E R The defacto complainant is the petitioner herein. The criminal revision is filed against the final order dated 29.1.2004 passed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in Crime No.456 of 2003 on the file of C1, Flower Bazaar Police Station. 2.The Judicial Magistrate has, by order dated 29.1.2004 disposed of the case as "mistake of fact" based on the report filed by the Investigating Officer and consequently, discharged the accused from the charges. 3.The only issue that arises for consideration herein is as to whether notice and due opportunity is to be given to the complainant by the court below before accepting the final report and closing the case. 4.The issue is directly answered by the Apex Court in the judgement reported in 1997 (7) SCC 614 in Union Public Service Commission v. S.Papaiah and others, wherein, our Apex Court is inclined to hold the identical order of the Magistrate to be bad. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the case decided by the Supreme Court, the Investigating Agency filed final report before the Concerned Judicial Magistrate and notice was also issued by CBI to the complainant and no notice was admittedly issued by the concerned Judicial Magistrate court. However, the Judicial Magistrate court by accepting the final report, closed the case and when the same was challenged on behalf of the complainant, the Supreme Court held the acceptance of the final report and closure of the case by Magistrate as bad and while doing so, the Supreme court has observed that it is mandatory on the part of the concerned Judicial Magistrate to issue notice to the informant at the time of consideration of the final report and the issuance of notice by the CBI was not substitute for the notice which was required to be given by the concerned Magistrate Court and the Magistrate could not in any event "delegate" to the investigating agency its function of issuing notice. The Apex court proceeds to hold that the Magistrate was not justified in accepting the final report of the CBI and in closing the case without complying with the mandatory requirement and when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and in no other manner. The Supreme court by observing so, held the entire proceedings as vitiated and bad. 5.Here also, the notice was given only by the Investigating agency and no notice was given by the concerned Magistrate court at the time of consideration of the final report. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex court, the order under challenge accepting the final report seeking closure of the case without any notice and due opportunity to the petitioner/complainant has to be necessarily held in violation of the statutory requirement and the principle of natural justice and is per se illegal and invalid. 6.In the result, the criminal revision is allowed by setting aside the final order dated 29.1.2004 passed by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in Crime No.456 of 2003 on the file of C1, Flower Bazaar Police Station. The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is directed to consider the final report filed by the investigating agency after giving due notice and personal hearing to the defacto complainant. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai-1. 2.The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 3.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras-104. 1 cc To Mr.D.Nagasaila, Advocate, SR.5070 Crl.R.C.No.585 of 2004 ck(co) pmk.12.4.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/