5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the accused cannot invoke Section 395 Cr.P.C., and only the concerned Court can invoke the power under Section 395 Cr.P.C. If the concerned Court is subjectively satisfied that the question relating to the validity of any Act or ordinance has to be referred to High Court for the determination. In view of the same, this petition filed by the petitioner to be dismissed at the threshold. He further submitted that the case was registered on 27.11.2014 by the 2 nd respondent, as per order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7994 of 2014, dated 09.10.2014. Originally, the case in Crime No.19 of 2012 was registered by the 3 rd respondent for offence under Sections 341 and 302 IPC, after completion of investigation, final report was filed before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 30.03.2012 as against A1 to A10 and taken on file as P.R.C.No.131 of 2012. Since the defacto complainant was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the 3 rd respondent Police, he filed Crl.O.P.No.7994 of 2014 before this Court, wherein this Court finding that the investigation is not proper and the grievance of the defacto complainant to be real, in the interest of justice, this Court transferred the investigation to the file of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Central Bureau of Investigation on completion of investigation filed the final report before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against A1 to A12, for offence under Section 120(b) r/w 341, 342, 149, 150 and 302 of IPC. After that, the accused have been filing petitions one by one and thereby, stalled the progress of the trial.
