1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.471 of 2011 S.Vareed : Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil & Post. 2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, Crime No.28 of 2007 : Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent police to expedite the investigation on the crime No.28 of 2007 dated 28.08.2007 and secure the jewels and money fraudulently taken by the accused within a stipulated time fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan, Govt.Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent police to expedite the investigation in the crime No.28 of 2007 dated 28.08.2007 and secure the jewels and money fraudulently taken by the accused within a stipulated time fixed by this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that even though the case in crime No.28 of 2007 was registered on 28.08.2007 by the 2nd respondent police, no further action was taken so far and therefore, seeks direction to the 2nd respondent to expedite the investigation on the crime No.28 of 2007 dated 28.08.2007 and secure the jewels and money fraudulently taken by the accused within a time frame. 3. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the respondent police has already completed the investigation and referred the matter and ‘Un detected’ and referred charge sheet has also been filed in R.C.S.No.1 of 2009 and the referral notice has also been served upon the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side), this court could see that there is no F.I.R. pending to direct the 2nd respondent to expedite the investigation in crime No.28 of 2007 and hence, this petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is not remediless. He can very well approach the Judicial Magistrate concerned by way of filing protest petition for re-investigation. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to proceed in accordance with law by filing necessary private complaint before the Court concerned. The petitioner is always entitled to proceed in accordance with law and therefore, this Court is inclined to give him opportunity to file private complaint and the same may be referred by the said Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation or the said Court itself can take cognizance of the offence on production of relevant evidence before the said Court by way of recording the statement of witnesses. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petitioner seeking for issuing direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil & Post. 2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to MR.T.Murugan, Advocate (SR.No.1841) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.471 of 2011 18.01.2011 arul NSV/1.2.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/