G.Subburaj vs The State Rep. Through on 5 March, 2018

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

G.Subburaj vs The State Rep. Through on 5 March, 2018

Bench: P.N.Prakash

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 05.03.2018  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH            

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.122 of 2018 

G.Subburaj                      ...  Petitioner / Defacto complainant

vs.

1.The State Rep. through
  The Inspector of Police,
  Mayiladumparai Police Station,
  Theni District.                       ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Tamilarasan 
3.Ponkumar  
4.Prabakaran 
5.Murugeswari 
6.Vanthana Devi                 ... Respondents 2 to 6 /Accused        

PRAYER: Criminal revision filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records from Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Aandipatti pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5015 of 2017 and set
aside the same. 

!For Petitioner :       Mr.S.Gladson 

^For 1st Respondent     :       Mrs.S.Bharathi 
                        Government Advocate  

:ORDER

On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2015 on 24.11.2015 under Sections 147, 109, 448, 294(b), 324, 323, 420 and 506(ii) I.P.C. against Tamilarasan and four named and 20 unnamed accused and after completing the investigation, police have filed closure report, closing the case as mistake of fact. The petitioner filed a protest application in Crl.M.P.No.5015 of 2017 in Crime No.134 of 2015, which has been dismissed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aandipatti on 06.01.2018, challenging which the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the first respondent.

3.On a reading of the impugned order, the trial Court has given cogent reason for accepting the closure report, which does not call for interference. That apart as pointed out by the trial Court, further investigation post cognizance can be sought for only by the police as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai [(2017) 4 SCC 177].

4.Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is closed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in accordance with law.

To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aandipatti.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court