Allowed

K. Selvaraj v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC22 Jun 2016CRL RC/794/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401 CrPC. The Court set aside the lower Magistrate's order dismissing a motion for further investigation, directing the police to investigate properly after failing to record statements from injured witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24.07.2015 set aside; Criminal Revision Case allowed; further investigation directed within one month.

K. Selvaraj Vs the State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.06.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.794 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

K.Selvaraj 2. Sakunthala ... Petitioners/Injured witnesses

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Chinnasalem Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.17 of 2014) ... Respondent/Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 24.07.2015 in C.M.P.No.3461 of 2015 in P.R.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi and direct the respondent to further investigate the case in Crime No.17 of 2014 on the file of the respondent under Sect 173(8) of CRPC.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) - - - - -

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 24.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, in C.M.P.No.3461 of 2015, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners for ordering further investigation in Crime No.17 of the 2014 on the file of the respondent police.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that no statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer from the injured witnesses viz., K.Selvaraj,

¶17

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

¶18

S/o.Kaliyamurthy and Sakunthala, W/o.Kaliyamurthy, the revision petitioners herein. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Investigating Officer has not conducted the investigation in proper manner and the petitioners have filed a petition in C.M.P.No.3461 of 2015 for ordering further investigation in Crime No.17 of 2014. But, the learned trial Judge, without application of mind, dismissed the petition stating that the petitioners have no locus standi to seek further investigation and hence, the learned counsel prayed that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, may be set aside and the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that now, the settled legal principle is that further investigation can be ordered only on the petition filed by the de facto complainant/Investigation Officer.

¶20

In this case, the learned Government Advocate conceded that one of the injured witnesses viz., K.Selvaraj was admitted in the hospital and no statement was recorded from him. The reason for non recording of statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer is that at the time when the Investigating Officer went to the hospital, the injured witness was not available. The above said reason stated by the Investigating Officer is not at all acceptable one. From the above circumstances, the Investigating Officer has not completed the investigation in proper manner.

¶21

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that it is just and necessary to order for further investigation. Hence, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, rejecting the request of the petitioners for ordering further investigation, is liable to be set aside.

¶22

In the result, the order dated 24.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, in C.M.P.No.3461 of 2015, is set aside and the criminal revision case is allowed. The Investigating Officer is directed to make further investigation in Crime No.17 of 2014 and file a final report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

-s/d-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CSIII)

¶25

True Copy

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi.

¶30

The Inspector of Police, Chinnasalem Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

Crl.R.C.No.794 of 2015
rsl(co)
aa30/06/2016

¶33

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

K. Selvaraj v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Selvaraj v. the State Rep. by

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

V.Arulselvam Vs v.Ezhilvannan

Selvi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ghanamoorthy Vs Rani

M.Vijayamuthuraman Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Krishnamoorthy Vs Lavanya

Velmurugan Vs State Rep by