Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. After receiving the negative final report, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai had issued R.C.S. Notice to the complainant Mr.K.V.Sathyanaranan on 13.10.2009, which appears to have been received by him on 14.10.2009.

8. Thereafter, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had on 30.10.2009 passed an order and thereby closed the case in Crime No.703 of 2007 as 'civil in nature' after accepting the negative final report filed by the third respondent Police.

9. Challenging the negative final report, the first respondent, who is the complainant therein, has filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1946 of 2010, which is under challenge in the present quash petition, to reject the report filed by the third respondent Inspector of Police and to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch to reinvestigate the same personally and file the report.

34. The learned senior counsel has also added that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had now reopened the case, which was closed by the very same Court vide it's order dated 30.10.2010, by admitting the protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1946 of 2010. It is well settled principle of law that once a final order signed, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot review the same subsequently as contemplated under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

35. The learned senior counsel has also maintained that the Order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the trial Court is still in force and has not been set aside by any superior Court of law. In such a scenario, the trial Court is barred from entertaining a petition much less protest petition that seeks to reconsider and review its own order.

75. He has also invited the attention of this Court to the final order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate closing the complaint in Crl.M.P.No.2145 of 2007 as 'civil in nature'. In this connection he would submit that the closure order of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without issuing notice to the first respondent/complainant, as held by the Apex Court in Union Public Service Commission's case, (1997) 7 SCC 614 is nonest in law and hence, liable to be set aside. He has also submitted that the first respondent/complainant was not aware of the fact of closure of his complaint and when he was put to understand about this fact, he was constrained to file a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1946 of 2010, the proceedings of which has now been sought to be quashed by the petitioner in the present petition. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that the first respondent/complainant was on a bonafide belief that the 3rd respondent would enquire the accused persons including the petitioner herein and file a charge sheet, but he was put to understand only on 15.06.2010 that the third respondent had closed the complaint as 'civil in nature' on 30.10.2009 without serving notice on him. He has also submitted that when the protest petition is pending on the file of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, the petitioner who is the 5th accused therein had also filed an impleading petition seeking to implead himself as the 3rd respondent in the protest petition which was also not maintainable under law.

4. Whether the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.1946 of 2010 (protest petition) pending on the file of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore is maintainable?

5. Whether the complaint in Crl.M.P.No.2145 of 2007 which was referred to the 3rd respondent for enquiry and report could not be termed as second complaint ?

77. In support of his contention Mr.N.R.Elango, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions: