1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.351 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Shanmuga Sundaram ... Petitioner S/o.Rajendra Nadar Vs. 1. The State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thirukkurungudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.1 of 2010) 3.Shanmuga Sundaram S/o.Mahalingam [R3 is impleaded as per the order of this Court made in M.P.No.2 of 2011 in Crl.O.P.No.351 of 2011 vide order dated 07.02.2011 by VPKJ.] ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the Inspector of Police, Thirukkurungudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District to conduct further investigation afresh in Crime No.1 of 2010 pending on the file of the second respondent police and further to direct him to complete the same within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Court. For Petitioner :: M/s.R.Anand For R1 and R2 :: Mrs.S.Devasena Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For R3 :: Mr.M.Ramesh O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant seeking for the conduct of further investigation afresh in Crime No.1 of 2010 pending on the file of second respondent police. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has given a complaint on 02.01.2010 for the occurrence happened on that day at 11.00 a.m. against six named accused and it was registered in Crime No.1 of 2010 on the file of the second respondent police. He would further submit that the said case was even though registered against six accused persons upon the complaint of the injured witness viz., the petitioner, the investigator had filed a final report leaving the fourth accused viz., Shanmuga Sundaram, who had specific overt act against the petitioner and another victim. He would further submit that the reason for dropping the action against the fourth accused was not clearly spoken in the charge sheet. He would also submit that the witnesses have spoken categorically agianst the fourth accused Shanmuga Sundaram in respect of the overt acts stated against him. Therefore, he would request the Court that a further investigation may be ordered to complete the investigation in full as per the overt acts mentioned in the F.I.R. and thus the petition may be ordered. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in her argument that the investigation was promptly done by the second respondent police and he has examined 10 witnesses out of which six witnesses were ocular witnesses including the petitioner/de-facto complainant and those evidence of the witneses would go to show that the said accused A4 Shanmugasundaram was not at all present in the scene of occurrence. She would further submit that the statement of the petitioner as de-facto complainant recorded by the police would also go to show that the said Shanmuga Sundaram was not involved in the said occurrence. She would also submit that the second respondent has not thought of excluding any persons much less the said Shanmuga Sundaram from the case. She wold further submit that since there was no evidence agaisnt the said Shanmuga Sundaram, charge sheet was not filed against him. Therefore, she would request the Court that the petition sought for reinvestigation may therefore be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit in his argument that the third respondent was not involved in the occurrence. He would further submit that the petitioner cannot seek his remedy before this Court without exhausting the legal remedy by filing protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor to seek for further investigation. He would further submit that the investigator had thoroughly investigated the case and had excluded third respondent from the charge sheet and therefore, it need not be altered or no further investigation be ordered. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the petition. 6. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. Six accused participated in the occurrence on 02.01.2010, in which the victim sustained injuries. The complaint was given to the second respondent police on 02.01.2010 at about 11.30 a.m. The occurrence was said to have been taken place only at 11.00 a.m. The particulars given in the complaint would go to show that the Shanmugasundaram and his three sons viz., Rajkumar, George Kosal, Ramesh, Iyu @ Mahalingam and Soundarrajan were indulged in removing thorny fence at the land belonging to the son-in-law of the petitioner and when the petitioner questioned the same, they have assulted the petitioner. The allegations made in the F.I.R. would further go to show that the said Shanmuga Sundaram had pelted stone against him and the complainant sustained injuries. Therefore, this Court could see that the involvement of the third respondent/A4 in the F.I.R. has been clearly spoken in the F.I.R. which was given within half an hour from the time of occurrence. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation was not carried out promptly and the statement recorded from the de-facto complainant itself was not genuinely recorded. In the said circumstances, the submission of the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) that the evidence collected and the statement recorded from the de-facto complainant itself had not implicated the fourth accused/third respondent Shanmuga Sundaram in the occurrence, has to be verified by virtue of further investigation. There cannot be any harm for the third respondent or any other person, if further investigation is ordered for the purpose of finding out the truth, despite the charge sheet has been filed and it was taken on file by the Court concerned. 8. Whenever the facts and circumstances show that further investigation is necessary, the Court should not hesistate for the fact that the proceedings regarding trial would be delayed and it shall not be a ground for rejecting the further investigation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass an order of further investigaton in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordinglty, a further investigation is ordered and the second respondent police is directed to do the further investigation afresh and to record the statement of the de-fato complainant once again and even in the form of obtaining an affidavit and to file a further final report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The P.R.C. proceedings are directed to be stayed till the filing of further final report. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3. The Inspector of Police, Thirukkurungudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.S.Ravi, Advocate (SR.No.9442) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.351 of 2011 22.02.2011 akv NSV/29.3.11/4P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/