2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assistant Commissioner, C.B.C.I.D, Madurai. ...Respondents/Respondents Common Prayer: Criminal Revisions filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for records in Crl.M.P.No.8582 and 8583 of 2011, dated 12.12.2011 in P.R.C.No.48/2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate 2, Madurai and set aside the same.
In both Revisions:
For petitioners : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents 2 & 3: Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.A.S.Vaigunth for R-1 :COMMON ORDER Challenging the common order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.8582 and 8583 of 2011, dated 12.12.2011 in P.R.C.No.48/2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate 2, Madurai, these criminal revision cases have been filed.
2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are as follows:
The first respondent herein/defacto complainant viz., Mathiyalagan is an advocate. There was a dispute between the petitioners herein/accused 1 to 3 and the defacto complainant. In this regard, a crime has been registered in Cr.No.693/2010 against the petitioners/accused, for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 506(i) and 3(1)(10) of SC & ST Act. After investigation, a final report has been filed against only one person, leaving two persons. Aggrieved over the same, the defacto complainant filed two petitions under
Sections 173(8) Cr.P.C, in Crl.M.P.Nos.8582 and 8583 of 2011, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai, seeking further investigation and transfer of investigation. The court below, after considering the entire materials available on record, allowed those petitions. Aggrieved over the same, the present criminal revision cases have been filed.
3.Heard Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.
4.In view of the full Bench decision of this court in 2017 (2) CTC 241 (Chinnathambi @ Subramani Vs State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vellakovil Police Station, Tirupur District), the defacto complainant cannot maintain a petition under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, seeking further investigation, after filing a final report. It is only the Investigating agency can maintain a petition.
5. In view of the above, the common order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. Both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. However during the trial, from the evidence, it appears that if any person not being an accused has committed an offence, it is always open to the petitioners to file necessary petition under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate 2, Madurai
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assistant Commissioner, C.B.C.I.D, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..