1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.15332 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Kanthan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the first respondent to make further investigation of the case in Crime No.266 of 2011, dated 07.10.2011, which was registered by the second respondent and file final report before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court, within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :: Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents :: Mr.P.Kannithevan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to make further investigation of the case in Crime No.266 of 2011, dated 07.10.2011, which was registered by the second respondent and file a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a stipulated time. 2. Heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 3. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this petition has been filed seeking for a direction against the first respondent- Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District to do further investigation in the case where the second respondent has registered the complaint in Crime No.266 of 2011, dated 07.10.2011 on the file of the second respondent police. He would further submit in his argument that the injuries sustained by the petitioner/de-facto complainant are grievous in nature and it can be substantiated by the Accident Register as well as the Discharge Summary, which have been enclosed in Page Nos.3 and 6 & 7 of the typed set of papers respectively. He would further submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the examination of doctors is yet to be completed as well as necessary wound certificates are also yet to be obtained. He would also submit that unless the first respondent is directed to monitor the investigation to be continued by the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent, the culprits may flee from the clutches of law and therefore, suitable directions may be given to the respondents to make further investigation and to file a charge sheet within the span of time. 4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is still pending and the second respondent will do the investigation and find out the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner based on the examination of the doctors and will file necessary charge sheet. He would further submit that the second respondent may be granted three months time for filing such charge sheet after completion of investigation. 5. Considering the submissions made on either side, I could see that the investigation is pending and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as evident from the Accident Register, which is enclosed in page No.3 and the Discharge Summary, which is enclosed in Page Nos.6 and 7, would go to show that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are all cut injuries and in one injury bone depth extensor muscles were severed and nerve was also cut in yet another injury. All those injuries should have been caused by some weapons to which medical evidence alone has the answer and the weapons used, have to be corroborated in such evidence. Similarly, medical evidence would also be helpful for identifying the nature of injuries. According to the submissions of the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side), the doctors are yet to examined and the would certificates are yet to be obtained. 6. In the said circumstances, the second respondent police is directed to continue the investigation in Crime No.266 of 2011 and the first respondent is directed to monitor the investigation to be conducted by the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to do further investigation in an expeditious manner and if necessary amend or alter the offences and file the charge sheet within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AE ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR pm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. G. THALAIMUTHARASU, ADVOCATE, SR: 41341: DM::2011:NOVEMBER:25:: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15332 of 2011 2P:5C:: 24.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/