1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition (MD)No.16060 of 2011 P.Susila ... Petitioner Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyar to number the C.M.P. Filed in C.C.No.195 of 2009 on the file of the Thiruvaiyar. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad For Respondents : M.P.Kannithevan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyar to number the C.M.P. Filed in C.C.No.195 of 2009 on the file of the Thiruvaiyar. 2. Heard Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and the case has been registered on the foot of the complaint given by the petitioner and charge sheet has also been filed and the case has been taken on file in C.C.No.195 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru and it is pending for trial. 4. He would further submit in his argument that a petition has been filed by the petitioner in C.M.P.....of 2011, seeking for a direction against the respondent police, to do further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and file a further final report, after getting a report from handwriting expert regarding the signatures found in the settlement deed dated 17.02.2004 to be compared with the admitted signatures of the complainant and to find out the truth and genuineness of the settlement deed, said to have been executed by the defacto complainant. The said fact is an important peace of evidence, which would also enable the respondent police to strengthen the case of the defacto complainant. However, the learned Judicial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Magistrate, has not entertained the petition filed by the defacto complainant. Therefore, he would request the Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and give a direction to number the C.M.P. In C.c.No.195 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. 5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for a direction for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court are clear that this is a domain of the police that they may file final report, if further evidence or other documents are found to prove the case. Therefore, he would request the Court that the petition seeking for a direction may be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions made by both parties, I could see that under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the police can file further final report at any time or after obtaining the orders of this Court. It is not available for the accused persons or for the defacto complainant, to seek direction for further investigation and to file further report. However, the petitioner has to put forth certain important points to the effect that signature of the defacto complainant, found in a settlement deed dated 17.02.2004, does not belong to her and it has to be compared with the handwriting expert and to obtain opinion and such opinion should also be placed before the learned Trial Judge for appreciating the same. 7. The said peace of evidence may be useful for strengthening the prosecution case and therefore, the respondent police has to be directed to go into the allegations made by the petitioner and investigation be done in respect of her disputed signatures in the settlement deed with that of the admitted signatures after being compared by the handwriting expert and on obtaining his report, to file any further report asthe case may be under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. If for any reasons, the respondent police is not inclined to file such final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru shall find out the truth during the course of trial by ordering further investigation, if necessary, in the interest of justice. 8. When these remedies are available for the petitioner, this Court cannot direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to number the petition filed by the petitioner for seeking such a relief as if the petitioner can seek or do further investigation and to file a final report. 9. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16060 of 2011 19.12.2011 arul NSV/10.1.12/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/