458 of 2009 in the High Court.
As the facts would unfurl, the appellant filed an FIR with the Sub Inspector of Police, Kulasekaram Police Station, upon which Crime No.
790 of 2011.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Criminal Revision Petition, i.e., Crl.
The High Court, accordingly, set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and further observed that as the learned Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 13.07.2009 had directed that the protest petition was to be treated as a private companyplaint, the de facto companyplainant still had an opportunity for presenting the case before the Court and numberprejudice was caused to him.
The Inspector of Police, Kulasekaram Police Station companyducted the initial investigation and subsequently the case was transferred to the District Crime Branch Police, Kanyakumari and thereafter, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram stating that the case was a mistake of fact.
In the meantime, the appellant had filed a protest petition dated 5.1.2009 forming the subject matter of Crl.
790/2011 whereby he has annulled the order dated 2.9.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil directing further investigation in exercise of power under Section 173 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC and also directing the investigation to be carried out by C.B.C.I.D. on the foundation that in the obtaining fact situation there are numberexceptional circumstances for ordering re investigation.
R.C. No.
Thereafter, it took numbere of the judgments in Hemant Dhasmana supra , Sonalai Soni vs State of Chattisgarh and Ors.3, and Hasanbhai Valibhai Quareshi supra , and came to hold that in terms of the said judgments there is power under S. 173 8 of CrPC to forward the companyplaint for further investigation and resultantly by order dated 02.09.2010 directed the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID to companyfer the power on the Inspector, CBCID, Nagercoil to investigate the case in Crime number 119/2007 and file a report.
However, as the final report had already been accepted before disposing the protest petition, the appellant preferred Crl.
M.P. number 1974/2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate praying therein to direct CBCID to re open the case and file a fresh report.
The Court after hearing both the appellant and the Assistant Public Prosecutor came to the companyclusion that the investigation by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch had been companyducted in a biased manner and the said authority had laboured hard to save the accused persons and hence, the final report submitted by the investigating officer was number acceptable.
Before the High Court, the appellant companytended that the order of the Magistrate was based on the acceptance of the final report submitted by the police and the order did number reflect any application of mind on his part.
Being aggrieved by the said order, one of the accused, Jegan, filed Criminal Revision No.
The learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.07.2009 dismissed the protest petition.
The informant had alleged that on 05.06.2007 about 2 p.m., Manikandan, Jegan, Murugan, Vijayan, Sunil and some others attacked him with Vettu Kathi, knife and iron rod and in the said attack he sustained multiple injuries.
It was further urged that the order was bereft of discussion of the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer, and that apart there was total number application of mind either for acceptance or rejection of the statements of the witnesses filed along with the final report.
The motive behind the assault, as per the FIR, was due to business rivalry that existed between the appellant and Manikandan, as both are companytractors.
The High Court, vide the impugned order, after discussing the evidence on record, came to hold that there were material discrepancies in the evidence brought on record and, therefore, in the present fact situation there were numberexceptional circumstances for ordering re investigation, and that apart, the scheme of Section 173 8 CrPC only enables the investigating officer to request for further investigation.
The High Court called for the report from the Magistrates Court and, thereafter, set aside the order accepting the final report and directed the Magistrate to companysider the final report along with the protest petition.
The learned Judicial Magistrate on intimation to the informant accepted the final report.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
It further directed that the protest petition to be treated as a separate private companyplaint.
The High Court while setting aside the order of learned Magistrate observed that the lower companyrt fell into error by neither discussing the material available, number clearly spelling out the reasons and shirked its duty by merely permitting the petitioner, therein, to pursue his cause by way of private companyplaint.
In this appeal, by special leave, the informant appellant calls in question the defensibility of the order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Madras at Madurai in Criminal Revision No.
After the remit, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, took up the case for further enquiry.
119/2007 was registered u s 147, 148, 341, 324, 323 and 307 of Indian Penal Code IPC .
It took numbere of the decisions in Hasanbhai Valibhai Quareshi vs State of Gujarat and Ors.1 and Hemant Dhasmana vs CBI and Anr.2, and held that as the investigation officer had examined all the witnesses as averred by the informant and received the evidence and as numbernew witnesses were cited to be examined, there was numberjustification for directing reinvestigation of the case.
O.P. number 1727/2009 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
