1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2561 of 2011 P. Muthukrishnan .. Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs. The State rep.by:: The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. (Cr.No.45 of 2007) .. Respondent/complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent to expedite the investigation and file final report in Cr.No.45 of 2007 on the file of the respondent within the time limit as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran For Respondent : Mrs.S.Muthuvenkatesan,Government Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R The petitioner herein is the brother of the deceased by name Kannan, who died in motor accident. The petitioner has given the First Information Report to the Police. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the complaint given by him, a case was registered in Cr.No.45 of 2007 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station. No final report has been filed. The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking a direction from this Court to expedite the investigation and file final report. 2.This petition was filed on 24.02.2011. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that in this matter the investigation has been completed as early as on 24.02.2007 and it was closed as mistake-of- fact. On the representation made by the learned Government Advocate (crl.side), this Court gave directions to the concerned Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai, to be present before this Court along with CD file. Though according to the learned Government Advocate (crl.side), RC notice was served to the defacto complainant, the said fact was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.This Court perused the case file. 4.On perusal, the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., by the Sub-Inspector of Police, reveals that while the deceased was crossing the road, the lorry came from south to north. The driver of the lorry without hooting the horn came in high speed and dashed against the deceased. The statement of witnesses clearly make out the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry. Further, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 as per inquest report in Column No.15, the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry. While the record on investigation shows that the driver of the lorry acted in a rash and negligent manner, it is not known as to why the case was referred as mistake-of-fact. It is also not understood though the case was referred as mistake-of-fact as early as on 24.02.2007, as to why the final report so far was not filed before the concerned Court. In the said circumstances and also considering the materials available in case diary, this Court feels that it would be proper to give a direction to the respondent police and accordingly directed to reopen the case and file a proper final report before the concerned Court within a period of one month from today. 5.The Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR MPK To 1.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. C. MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN, ADVOCATE,SR: 10978: DM:2011::MARCH:22::: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2561 of 2011 01.03.2011 2P:4C:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/