1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.OP(MD)No.1343 of 2011 Mani :Petitioner/Defacto Complainant -Vs- State Represented by 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station,Pudukkottai District. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station,Pudukkottai District.:Respondents/Complainants Prayer:Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to issue a direction the directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to reopen the case in Crime No.285 of 1998 on the file of the 3rd respondent. For Petitioners :Mr.K.Baalasundharam For Respondent :Mr.L.Murugan,Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to issue a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to reopen the case in Crime No.285 of 1998 on the file of the 3rd respondent. 2.Heard Mr.K.Baalasundharam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the State/respondents. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has given a complainant before the second respondent police and a case was registered in Crime No.285 of 1998 and the said case was under the investigation. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur has closed the FIR, in his order dated 22.11.2001 as barred by limitation. He would further submit that the said closure of FIR itself is not sustainable, because the allegation mentioned in complaint as well as the FIR would go to show that the petitioner was attacked by the accused persons with a deadly weapon i.e., aruval and his left hand's three fingers including the index finger were seriously injured. Apart from that he was beaten and slapped on his cheek. He would also submit that the injured was treated in a private hospital and the fracture were re-united but with mal- union and he cannot use the three fingers for his purpose. He would further submit in his argument that the said allegation would result an offence under the provision of Section 326 IPC. He would also submit in his argument that without knowing the closure of FIR, the petitioner has applied https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 for a direction for the completion of investigation and to file the charge sheet in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12035 of 2007 and this Court also ordered directing the third respondent to complete the investigation and to file charge sheet within one month. 4.He would further submit in his argument that however, the learned Judicial Magistrate has closed the FIR, which is not in accordance with law and the query raised by the petitioner with the respondent police would go to show that unless it is reopened, the investigation cannot be completed He would also submit in his argument that therefore the FIR registered in Crime No.285 of 1998, which was closed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur on 22.11.2001 as barred by limitation may be set aside and the case may be reopened for further investigation. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the allegations made in the complaint were considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate and he had come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 324 IPC alone was made out and therefore, the case was barred by limitation as on that date and it was promptly closed and there is no necessity for reopening the case since the injury caused to the petitioner was not grievous for attracting the provision of Section 326 IPC to see no period of limitation and therefore the claim of the petitioner seeking for reopening the case may be dismissed. 6.Considering the submission made by both parties, this Court could see that the case was registered in Crime No.285 of 1998 on the file of the second respondent police and investigation was not completed for a long time and in the mean time, the Judicial Magistrate Court, Keeranur, has closed the FIR on 22.11.2001, since it was barred by limitation from the date of the offence viz., the limitation period three years as the offence attracted only under Section 324 IPC. The case of the petitioner is that the case is not attracted under the law of limitation and within the period of three years since the offence committed against the petitioner would attract the 326 IPC. 7.Considering the arguments, this Court could see that the learned Judicial Magistrate has closed the FIR only on the basis of such limitation period and he had not considered whether the said offence would emerge into an offence under Section 326 IPC. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the injury was very grievous and three fingers were cut in the commission of offence by a deadly weapon i.e., aruval and the said three fingers could not be used because that they were mal-united due to the fractures caused by the cut injuries. 8.In the said circumstances, the investigation only will bring out the nature of injury and the appropriate provisions either 324 or 326 IPC could be included in the charge sheet. But before coming to any conclusion regarding the nature of injury, the said case was closed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 22.11.2001 as barred by limitation cannot be correct. Since the offence committed against the petitioner is attracted by Section 326 IPC, there could not be any limitation period. However,it is liable to be investigated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and found. In the said circumstances, interest of dispensing justice require to pass on order of reopening the said FIR closed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 22.11.2001 (i.e.,) Crime No.285 of 1998 on the file of the second respondent police, for further investigation. 9.It is further ordered that on such reopening of the said FIR, the second respondent is directed to probe and do the investigation by collecting evidence from the petitioner as well as from the hospital, where he took treatment and to file the charge sheet within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above said direction, this petition is ordered Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Pudukkottai District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy To: The Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur. +1CC to M/s.K.Baalasundharam, Advocate. SR.No.8953. Vsm RP/18.02.2011/3P/7C. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1343 of 2011 14.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/