1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.2433 of 2011 P.Kaman ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by:: The Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station, Theni, Theni District. Crime No.1026 of 2010. ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to properly investigate the complaint lodged by the petitioner which was registered in Crime No.1026 of 2010 in a proper manner and to file charge sheet in this case. For Petitioner :: M/s. K.Manikandan For Respondent :: Mrs.S.Devasena, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondent to properly investigate the complaint lodged by the petitioner which was registered in Crime No.1026 of 2010 and to file a charge sheet in this case. 2. Heard Mr.K.Manikandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has given a complaint before the respondent police and the case was registered in Crime No.1026 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and the case was not properly investigated and the petitioner is yet to be examined and the statement of the petitioner has to be recorded and without such completion of investigation, the respondent police has sought for filing the report as to 'Mistake of Fact' before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a protest petition before the said Court and the said Court had returned the petition by stating that the protest petition cannot be entertained and since the final report filed by the respondent as to mistake of fact has been returned and the respondent police has not so far represented the said charge sheet and is keeping it in his file. Therefore, he would request the Court that the respondent police may be directed to properly investigate the matter and to examine the petitioner, record his statement and also to do the investigation and to file a charge sheet against the accused persons, since a counter case has also been registered by the police and the charge sheet has also been filed against the petitioner as well as the petitioner's men. He would further submit that since the complaint given by the petitioner is registered and was investigated along with the counter case, the present F.I.R registered should also been investigated and charge sheet shall be filed against the accused persons so as to decide the matter by the Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of law. In the said circumstances, he would request the Court to order the petition accordingly with the direction sought for. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in her argument that the investigation was promptly conducted and 'Mistake of Fact' charge sheet has been filed and it has been returned by the jurisdictional Court and it is yet to be rectified and represented. She would further submit in her argument that if for any reason, this Court is directing the respondent police to do investigation once again and the respondent police will do it and will file a necessary charge sheet in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I can understand that the complaint given by the petitioner was registered in Crime No.1026 of 2010 by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. against the rival group people and yet another complaint was registered by the respondent police against the petitioner and others in Crime No.1025 of 2010 and it was investigated and a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and others and the case was taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.23 of 2010 and the copies of documents are yet to be furnished to the petitioner's side people. However, it is also made known to the Court that a 'Mistake of Fact' charge sheet has been filed and it was returned by the Court and it is yet to be represented by the respondent. According to the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has not at all been examined for the purpose of investigation in the present case. Whatever might be the circumstances, the respondent police is directed to do the investigation in the said case, since it is a counter case for the case registered in Crime No.1025 of 2010 which culminated into the filing of P.R.C.No.23 of 2010. In the said circumstances, it is for the respondent police to investigate the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to submit a charge sheet against the persons, who are shown as accused in the present case and it is for the Court to try both the cases and to decide the actual aggressor and to end conviction and punishment accordingly. In the said circumstances, the request of the petitioner to go for further investigation by the same respondent police and to file a charge sheet appears to be sound and accordingly, it is ordered. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is ordered. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( ACCOUNTS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR akv To 1. The Judicial Magistrate , Theni. 2. The Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station, Theni, Theni District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 2CC TO MR.K. MANIKANDAN, ADVOCATE, SR; 10437, 10301 DM:2011::APRIL:01::: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2433 of 2011 25.02.2011 2P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/