1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1443 of 2011 1.L.Arulmary 2.A.Yesubalan : Petitioners Vs. 1.The Government of Tamilnadu,represented by its Secretary to Government, Home Department,Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601,. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai – 600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District at Dindigul. 4.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul. 5.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Dindigul District at Dindigul. : Respondents (R5 impleaded as per order dated 17.08.2011 made in M.P.(MD) NO.1 of 2011) PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents to reopen and order for investigation of the case in crime No.1039 of 2009 on the file of the 4th respondent by C.B.C.I.D., or any other competent agency and to further proceed with prosecution. For Petitioners: Mr.K.Vamanan For Respondents: Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R Seeking a direction to the respondent police to reopen the case in Crime No.1039 of 2009 and further investigation of the matter through the 4th respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present petition. The said case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C in respect of the death of one Mr.Anthonisamy. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a clear case of murder. But the matter was not investigated thoroughly, is his grievance. 3. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) would submit that the case in the said Crime Number was thoroughly investigated and later on, it was found that the deceased committed suicide and it is not a case of murder and appropriate final report has been filed before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 jurisdictional Magistrate also. 4. In view of the above said circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency, he can very well approach the learned Judicial Magistrate with a protest application, when final report is taken up for consideration by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Instead of doing the same, the petitioner has come up with the present petition. 5. In my considered opinion, the petition is not maintainable and the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be conceded to at all and hence, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( Accounts ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR vsm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu Home Department, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601,. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai – 600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District at Dindigul. 4.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul. 5.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Dindigul District at Dindigul. 6.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. K. VAMANAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 35226: DM::2011:OCTOBER:::31:: CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1443 of 2011 11.10.2011 2P:8C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/