1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD) No.687 of 2011 Jeyachandran ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram, (Crime No.263 of 2010) ... Respondents/complainant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.6719 of 2010 dated 22.02.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi for Mr.M.Ajmalkhan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R The case in Crime No.263 of 2010 came to be registered on the file of the respondent police station under Section 174 Cr.P.C on the receipt of the information given by the father of the deceased stating that her elder daughter committed suicide in her husband's house. Pending investigation, the petitioner filed a case in Crl.O.P.No.13535 of 2010 before this Court praying the Court to direct the investigation by the CBCID, Ramanathapuram District. This Court disposed of the said criminal original petition on 16.11.2010 directing the Court below to pass orders after going through the following decisions:- “(i) Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra reported in AIR 1968 SC 117 (ii) H.S.Bains Vs. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) reported in AIR 1980 SC 1883. (iii) Tula Ram Vs. Kishore Singh, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 459. (iv) Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322. (v) Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 2 SCC (Crl) 801. (vi) Kunga Nima Lepcha and others Vs. State of Sikkim and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC (Crl) 878. The order concluded with an observation that in the event of the learned Judicial Magistrate deciding to order for further investigation, the Judicial Magistrate is having power to order some other agency to further investigate into the matter. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order challenged before this Court does not show that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, has gone through the decisions as directed by this Court and it has reached a conclusion that the prayer put forth by the petitioner is untenable. It is his further contention that the Court below https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 was carried away by the facts of the case and without following the principles contained in the said decisions mentioned above dismissed the application and that only if the decisions are referred to and the principles laid down in the said decisions are followed by the Court, then the petitioner can get justice. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 3. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that since the learned Judicial Magistrate has not referred and followed the decisions as directed by this Court, the order challenged before this Court has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 4. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram to take up Crl.M.P.No.6719 of 2010 and restore the same on file and hear both sides and pass appropriate orders on the principles of the guidelines as contained in the decisions mentioned above. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram. Copy to : The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1. CC to Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Advocate, SR.No. 28165 ssm Crl.R.C.(MD) No.687 of 2011 17.08.2011 TR : 26.08.2011: 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/