1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD).No.831 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 R.Sundarajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhu Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to withdraw the case in Crime No.582 of 2010 from the file of the third respondent and to allot the same to CBCID or some other independent investigation agency. For petitioner : Mr.B.Pugalendhi For respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to withdraw the case in Crime No.582 of 2010 and to transfer the same to the CBCID for further investigation. 2.According to the petitioner, a false case has been instituted against him and others in Crime No.582 of 2010 before the Srivilliputhur Town Police Station and proper investigation has not been done in the matter. The petitioner got a grievance that the dispute relates to a pure civil matter and it was given the colour of criminal offence. In short, the petitioner maintains that the investigation has not been done in a proper manner. 3.The third respondent has filed a status report, wherein it was indicated that after investigation of the matter, a draft charge sheet has already been given to the Additional Director General of Prosecution for opinion and the charge sheet would be filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur without any further delay. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.582 of 2010. His grievance is only on account of the so called defective investigation conducted by the third respondent. The question as to whether further investigation is necessary, is a issue to be decided by the trial Court. It is always open to the learned Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in case the petitioner demonstrates that there was no honest investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police. 5.Therefore, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served in case liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate. In case the petitioner submits any such application after filing charge sheet, the same would be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and as per law. 6.The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. gcg Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AD] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. 2. The Director General of Police, Chennai. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 4.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhu Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +2 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.4853 & 4859. W.P.(MD).No.831 of 2011 Dated:07.02.2011 2P/8C RPB 08.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/