1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL.O.P.(MD).No.12471 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Chin Cheung Hu : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul. 3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Dindigul District. : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to delete the report filed by the second respondent on 29.12.2010 pursuant to the order made in Cr.M.P.No.7651 of 2008 in C.C.No.291 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Dindigul and further direct the third respondent to conduct re- investigation in Crime No.5 of 2002 in a fresh. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.5 of 2002. On completing the investigation earlier, charge sheet was laid, upon which cognizance has also been taken in C.C.No.291 of 2004. While so, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 22.06.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.7651 of 2008 directing the police to further investigate the case. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul, has submitted a further report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Seeking to delete the said report dated 29.12.2010 and for a direction to the third respondent to conduct re- investigation in Crime No.5 of 2002, the petitioner has come up with the present Criminal Original Petition. 2. In my considered view, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be conceded to at all. First of all, there is a judicial order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 22.06.2009 directing the police to further investigate the case. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the nature of the final report, he can very well file a Protest Petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, requesting him not to accept the same. But, without resorting to the said legal procedure, the petitioner has come up with a peculiar prayer to delete the report filed by the second respondent on 29.12.2010 pursuant to the order made in Cr.M.P.No.7651 of 2008 in C.C.No.291 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Dindigul and further direct the third respondent to conduct re-investigation in Crime No.5 of 2002. Such a direction cannot be granted in law. In such view of the matter, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul 2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul. 4.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Dindigul District. 5.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Nb ssk/28.10.2011 /6c -2p/- ORDER MADE IN CRL.O.P.(MD).No.12471 of 2011 10.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/