Dismissed

V.Hemavathi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Sept 2013CRL OP/19520/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to complete investigation and file a final report. The Court held that the Magistrate must take further action after the final report and served notice on the complainant, rather than direct the investigation method itself.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with a direction to the VII Metropolitan Magistrate to take further action in accordance with the settled law after the final report and RCS notice.

V.Hemavathi Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.09.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶5

Criminal O.P. No.19520 of 2013

¶6

V.Hemavathi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep by The Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police Station, Esplanade, Chennai-600 104. .. Respondent

¶9

This Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.493 of 2012 and to file the final report before the concerned court within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvaraju

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶11

Hemavathy, defacto complainant, wants a direction to the respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.493 of 2012 expeditiously and file final report before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Chennai.

¶12

2.Hemavathy lodged a complaint with B-2, Esplanade Police Station. Based on that, a case in Crime No.493 of 2012 has been registered by the police.

¶13

3.The grievance of Hemavathy is that till date investigation is not completed and final report has been filed. Already, she had moved this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6198 of 2013 for similar direction. Then, it was reported to the court that investigation has been completed and final report also has been filed.

¶14

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copy application filed for copy of the final report was returned by the learned Magistrate since no such report was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed. The learned counsel also submitted that till date the FIR

¶15

is pending.

¶16

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report has already been filed and the complaint has been closed. R.C.S notice also has been served on the petitioner.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the records.

¶18

7.Registration of FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C is starting point for investigation. Investigation comes to an end on filing of Police report (See : Section 173 Cr.P.C.). The interregnum period is the field reserved for Investigating Officer. On filing of the final report, the ball will be in the Court of the learned Magistrate. He has to take further action.

¶19

8.In Police Standing Orders, it is mentioned that on conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer shall file "charge sheet". But, nowhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the word "Charge sheet' has been mentioned. But as per law, framing of charge against accused is the function of the Court.

¶20

9.Under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the report submitted by the Investigating Officer is "Police Report" [See Section 2(r) Cr.P.C.]. It is also known as Final Report. It does not always mean a positive report, namely, 'offences appears to have been committed'. It may be positive or negative. If it is positive, it is called as "charge sheet". If it is negative, it is called "referred charge sheet". But these words are not employed in the Code.

¶21

10.As per the instructions in the Police Standing Order, such negative report (referred charge sheet) has to be informed to the defacto complainant by issuing a police notice (R.C.S. notice) and thereafter only such negative report has to be filed before the Court. So final report does not always mean charge sheet. An F.I.R. may be referred as "mistake of fact", "mistake of law", "Accidental fire", "a civil case", etc. Then it is negative report. But, it is also a (police) report.

¶22

11.Once FIR is registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C., every step in the investigation has to be reported to the jurisdiction Magistrate, who has monitoring role over the Investigating officer during investigation, but the Magistrate cannot and should not direct the manner or method of investigation. Court cannot take the role of Investigating Officer. After the registration of the FIR, it is the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to report to the Court as to his investigation, whether it is negative or positive. It is the duty of the Magistrate to pass orders thereon.

¶23

12.Once a report, whether positive or negative is filed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ few courses are opened to the Magistrate. If it is a "positive

¶24

report", the Magistrate has to take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein [See Section 190 Cr.P.C.]. If it is a "negative report", certain courses are opened to the Magistrate. Either the Magistrate accept such a conclusion of the Investigating Officer or he can come to a different conclusion, if there are positive materials and he can take the case on file, in other words, he can take cognizance. If the Magistrate finds some loose ends or need clarification, he can direct the investigating officer accordingly. But, before accepting the negative report, that is to say "police version", notice shall be issued to the defacto complainant, who had set the criminal law in motion. The Magistrate must consider the objection of the defacto complainant. It is called "protest petition" Such petition shall take the character of a private complaint. The Magistrate then follow the procedure accordingly.

¶25

13.Once RCS notice is issued, police may wash their hands. But the Magistrate cannot. The Magistrate has to discharge his judicial function under the Code. Police has been given the power of enforcement. But, the Magistrate has been given the power of administration of criminal justice. It is the duty of the Magistrate to do justice according to law. But, at the same time, he cannot function like a Prosecutor or a defence counsel. He must be an umpire between both. But he shall not be a passive onlooker. He must play a positive role under Code.

¶26

14.In this view of the matter, on the final report filed by the police after serving RCS notice on the defacto complainant, i.e., Hemavathy, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town will take further action in accordance with law and the guidance given in this order.

¶27

15.With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Asst.Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Asst.Registrar

vvk

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶35

B-2, Esplanade Police Station, Esplanade,

¶36

Chennai-600 104.

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

2.The Learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶39

3.-do-thro The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶40

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶41

GGK(CO) km/3.10.

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.19520 of 2013

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Hemavathi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Hemavathi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Moorthy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Dr.N.Manivannan, Vs K.Thurairaj

S. Anandan Vs Vidya

Suresh @ Dhanasekar Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Sikandar Vs State Rep by

A.Rajkumar Vs the Deputy Superident of