IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 09.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.20436 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 1.M.Selvam 2.T.C.P.Mohan 3.R.Vijayakumar .. Petitioners Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police B-6, Tambaram Police Station Tambaram, Chennai. .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram in P.R.C.No.49 of 2003 filed under Section 173(8)of Cr.P.C. on 05.01.2004 by the respondent police in which the petitioners were shown as accused 2,3 and 4 in the list of accused column and to quash the same in Crime No.378 of 2003 as far as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioners : Mr.V.R.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ***** O R D E R The petitioners, who are accused 7, 4 and 5 in case pending in P.R.C.No.49 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram seek quash of proceedings as against them. 2.Crime No.378 of 2003 was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w.149 and 120(B) IPC in relation to a murder of one Muthu alias Muthuramalingam on 19.05.2003 at about 8.15 a.m. Several persons were arrested in connection with such offence. After being released on bail and on compliance of the conditions thereof, the 2nd accused in this case viz., K.Jayaraman moved this Court for transfer of investigation in the case to C.B.C.I.D. This Court issued a direction that the investigation in the case shall be monitored by the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpet. Though, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C was filed against the petitioners herein and others, the Superintendent of Police found that further investigation was necessary and on such investigation, a special team entrusted to the investigation have detected the involvement of six persons other than the accused earlier arrayed in the case. On an affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police on 05.12.2003, the accused, other than the petitioners herein, who were named in the original charge sheet were deleted and a final report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was filed on 05.01.2004 whereunder six persons whose involvement was found out as also these petitioners stand implicated. The investigating officer filed an affidavit on 09.01.2004 before the lower court stating that during the course of further investigation, it was found that six persons were the real accused behind the murder. 3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though in the affidavits of the investigating officer filed before the lower court on 26.09.2003, 05.12.2003 and 09.01.2004, nothing had been stated about the involvement of these petitioners as accused and despite the investigating officer's assertion that it was the six persons whose involvement was discovered through further investigation that were the real accused, still these petitioners have been arrayed as accused 7, 4 and 5 in the case. 4.The issue of summons by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur to the other persons arrayed as accused in the original charge sheet stands quashed by order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.28069 of 2004 dated 08.09.2008. The only reason why these petitioners have not been deleted from the array of accused is that an order of detention of these petitioners as goondas has been made and in such circumstance, the investigating officer had found it inconvenient to delete these persons from the array of accused. In the course of further investigation, no fresh evidence had been gathered to implicate these petitioners as accused. 5.In response to the above submissions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the reason why these petitioners still stand arrayed as accused despite further investigation is that the list witnesses 6 and 7 in the case have specifically spoken to their overtacts. It is the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that it would not be open for this Court to interfere in favour of the petitioners at this stage as that would amount to predeciding the issue. 6.I have considered the rival submissions. 7.The fact that there was a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. would not stand in the way of the concerned Court to consider the materials gathered in the original investigation. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ process of sifting the material and weighing the evidence is one which is reserved for the trial Court. This Court in exercise of its inherent power cannot enter upon such an exercise. Investigation is the realm of the police. Where the investigating officer has thought it fit that the petitioners herein also be arrayed as accused in the case, it is not for this Court to state otherwise. There is no complaint of wrong doing or malafides of the investigating agency, which is called for decision. It would be open to the petitioners to raise all contentions in their defence before the lower Court. With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 8.Since the case relates to an occurrence of the year 2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is directed to expeditiously commit the case for trial before the concerned Court. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gm To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. 2.The Inspector of Police B-6, Tambaram Police Station Tambaram, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.V.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.23481 Crl.O.P.No.20436 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 GS(CO) sra 21/04/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/