Madras High Court
K.Somasundaram vs State By on 25 January, 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.10.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.01.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
CRL.R.C.No.872 of 2018
and
CRL.M.P.No.9944 of 2018
K.Somasundaram ... Petitioner / Accused
-vs-
1.State by
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Pulianthope Range,
Chennai-600 012. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.Praveenkumar ... 2nd Respondent
3.A.Naazar ... 3rd Respondent / P.W.3
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records of M.P.No.2788 of 2017 in
C.C.No.3611 of 2011 and set aside the same pending on the file of the
learned X Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore at Chennai-8 at Allikulam
Complex, Chennai-600 002 and order Denovo Investigation of
complaint in Cr.No.130 of 2011 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC
preferred by the second respondent herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Veerababu
For R1 : Ms.V.Saratha Devi,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The sole accused is the revision petitioner herein. He has filed this Criminal Revision Case against the order passed in M.P.No.2788 of 2017 in C.C.No.3611 of 2011 by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore at Chennai-8 now at Allikulam Complex, Chennai-600 002, wherein the application filed by the accused for reinvestigation has been rejected.
2.According to the revision petitioner herein, the first respondent is an Investigation Officer cum De jure Complaint. The second respondent is a victim of an accident / defacto complainant, who lost his left leg (S.338 IPC) and the third respondent is the accused's driver, who dashed against the victim.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the driver of JCB on earth mover belonging to Corporation of Chennai with a special licence for the past 30 years and retired now. On 01.02.2011 the petitioner went to Pananthoippu Colony Egangipuram in P.2 Otteri Police limits to level a dried tank with the debris and need brought by a tipper lorry also belonging to Corporation of Chennai till 02.00 p.m., and stationed the JCB in the tank bed. The tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN 04 B 2018 was driven by the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 above third respondent, namely, A.Nazeer, who was shutting the excavated catch from stock yard of Corporation. When the petitioner returned to the Sirey, he saw a huge crowd and on enquiry he knew that a boy was crushed in between JCB and tipper.
4.It is the contention of the revision petitioner herein that the petitioner / accused is not a driver, who caused accident, but according to him, the third respondent is the accused, who caused the accident. However, investigation was not properly done and accordingly, the first respondent police has filed charge sheet against the petitioner herein.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police and perused the materials available on record carefully.
6.After hearing the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and after perusing the back papers produced by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it appears that during trial, P.W.1 has deposed that the accused is not present in the Court and on such http://www.judis.nic.in 4 evidence is recorded. The then Metropolitan Magistrate of that Court has ordered for further investigation and after further investigation, the additional charge sheet appears to have been filed before the Court and the same was taken on file. The original charge sheet has been filed on 21.01.2015 and the accused has also received the copies as could be seen from the records. P.W.1 was originally examined before the Court on 27.05.2015 and based upon his evidence as stated supra, further investigation appears to have been ordered. Thereafter, the additional charge sheet has been filed on 06.11.2015. Now, the accused has filed the present petition, wherein he wanted to reject the additional charge sheet and to order for further investigation.
7.In view of the decision rendered in the case of Chinnathami @ Subramani Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Vellakovil Police Station, Tirupur District in Crl.A.No.663 of 2016, dated 23.02.2017, the accused cannot ask for further investigation.
8.In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned http://www.judis.nic.in 5 X Metropolitan Magistrate in M.P.No.2788 of 2017 in C.C.No.3611 of 2011 does not warrant any interference by this Court and the same is hereby confirmed.
9.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the records to the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate as early as possible. Thereafter the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8 at Allikulam Complex, Chennai-600 002, is hereby directed to dispose of the case, within a period of twelve weeks. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
25.01.2019 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes Myr To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope Range, Chennai-600 012.
2.The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Allikulam Complex, Chennai-600 002.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Myr Order made in CRL.R.C.No.872 of 2018 25.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in