1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL.O.P.(MD)No.12358 of 2011 Govindan : Petitioner/defacto complainant Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.In Cr.No.198 of 2011. : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the second respondent to file a final report against the 4th accused in the case in Cr.No.198 of 2011 within the stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Marimuthu For Respondents: Mr.P.Kannithevan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Cr.No.198 of 2011. On his complaint, the said case was registered against four accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 of I.P.C. But, in the final report, the fourth accused has been dropped and charge sheet has been laid only against rest of the three accused. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come up with the present petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to file final report against the 4th accused also. 2.In my considered opinion, this petition is highly misconceived. Filing of final report is the wisdom of the police based on the materials collected during investigation. On receiving the final report, if the learned Magistrate finds that if there is omission of any accused mentioned in the F.I.R, he is bound to issue notice to the de facto complainant and on receipt of the said notice or even before such notice, the de facto complainant will be at liberty to file a protest petition before the learned Magistrate. On considering the said protest and all the relevant materials, the learned Magistrate may even take cognizance as against the omitted accused as well. 3.If the grievance of the petitioner is that the name of 4th accused was not included in the final report, he can approach the Magistrate by making an application for protest or to file a petition for further investigation. Though such alternative remedies are available, the petitioner has rushed to this Court, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C, which, in my view, is not sustainable and therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement in C.Ve.Shanmugam vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub-Division, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Rosanai Police Station, Tindivanam, Villupuram District, reported in (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 833. All facts of the said case are distinguished. 5.The principle stated therein cannot be made applicable to the present case. That was a case, where a petition was filed for further investigation and that was dismissed by the magistrate. As against the same, the party had approached the High Court. In the present case, the petitioner has not done so. He has also not challenged the order taking cognizance. Instead, he wants a positive direction to the police to file a final report against the 4th accused. The principle stated therein has got no applicability in the present case. Hence, I find no merit in this petition. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR(CO) /TRUE COPY/ VS SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. SB:24/11/2011 2p 4c CRL.O.P.(MD)No.12358 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/