1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.466 of 2011 T.Muthuraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 2. The Superintendent of Police, CBCID Wing,Narimedu, Madurai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Range, Madurai City. (in Crime No.537 of 2007) ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent herein to re -investigate the case in Crime No.537 of 2007. (Prayer amended as per the order of this Honourable High Court made in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in Crl.O.P.No.466 of 2011 vide its order dated 11.02.2011 by VPKJ. For Petitioner : M/s. C.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the second respondent herein to re-investigate the case in Crime No.537 of 2007. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the second respondent may be directed to re-investigate the case in Crime No.537 of 2007 and to pass necessary orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complaint was given by the petitioner and the case was registered in Crime No.537 of 2007 on the file of the third respondent police and it has not been investigated nor any charge sheet has been filed. However, he would submit in his argument that the police is said to have filed a referred charge sheet as 'Mistake of Fact' on 04.06.2007 and the said action of the police is not made known to the petitioner. He would also submit in his argument that the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) that it has been decided by the Vigilance Committee to drop the case and the resolution was passed in the said committee was not informed to him. He would further submit in his argument that the Court before which the drop action has been informed has also not issued any notice to the petitioner and the petitioner is without any information of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the case. However, it has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) that it has been dropped on 04.06.2007 and therefore, the petitioner may be given liberty to seek for reinvestigation and reinvestigation may be ordered. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the case has been already investigated and found that there is no merits and therefore, it has been dropped on 04.06.2007. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would also submit that he may be given an opportunity to serve the referred charge sheet notice against the petitioner and thereafter, he can choose his remedy to proceed with and accordingly, suitable orders may be passed. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the complaint given by the petitioner was registered in Crime No.537 of 2007 and it was dropped by the third respondent on 04.06.2007. Admittedly, no notice of such dropping of the case was given to the petitioner Subsequently, the Vigilance Committee constituted for the purpose of conducting the case filed under social legislation, met and had come to a conclusion of dropping certain cases which include the present case as it was decided on 26.07.2010. The said decision of the vigilance committee was not informed to the petitioner. The third respondent, who is the investigator ought to have informed the said dropping of the case to the Court concerned and the said Court viz., Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai did not also inform the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner could not seek his remedy before anyone of the forums. Now he has amended the prayer from transfer of investigation to re-investigation of the case. He has also got the remedy under law before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai to seek for reinvestigation. This Court has got ample power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to pass orders to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, there is no impediment for this Court to direct the reinvestigation of the case in Crime No.537 of 2007 in this petition itself and the third respondent police is directed to re-investigate the matter and to do the investigation after examination of the petitioner as well as the other witnesses produced by him and to file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 2. The Superintendent of Police, CBCID Wing,Narimedu,Madurai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Range, Madurai City. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.C.M.Arumugam, Advocate SR.No.10760 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.466 of 2011 01.03.2011 akv PA/29.03.2011/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/