1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:11.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.13267 of 2011 Santhiyaku ... Petitioner/De-facto Complainant Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai Sub-division, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/Respondents This petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the respondent No.3 to record statements from the petitioner and other witnesses, complete the investigation under the direct supervision of 2nd respondent and file charge sheet including section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act in Cr.No.123 of 2011 pending on the file of the 3rd respondent before the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Alugumani For Respondent :Mr.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) ORDER Seeking a direction to the third respondent to record the statements from the petitioner and other witnesses to complete the investigation and for a further direction to the second respondent to supervise the investigation and for filing charge sheet by including Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act in Cr.No.123 of 2011, pending on the file of the third respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present petition. 2.In my considered opinion, this petition is filed misconceived. A perusal of the materials on record would go to show that investigation has been done under the relevant penal provisions upon which, a final report is going to be filed before the Court concerned. At this stage, it is for the Jurisdictional magistrate to decide the offences for which cognizance could be taken. Basing on the materials placed before this Court. This Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, cannot issue any such direction to include any particular penal provision in the final report. In respect of the other prayers also, namely to record the statements from the petitioner and other witnesses, no direction is required from this Court, since, it is the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to record the statements of witnesses so as to collect useful information in respect of the occurrence. Therefore, none of the prayer can be granted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Therefore, this petition is dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to expedite the investigation and submit a final report by strictly following the procedures established by law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai Sub-division, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate, SR.No.35165 vs Crl.O.P.(md).No.13267 of 2011 11.10.2011 TR : 31.10.2011 : 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/