This writ petition challenged the District Collector's order directing a re-investigation in an SC/ST Atrocities case after a closure report was filed. The Court held the Collector lacked jurisdiction to order such inquiry.
The proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.06.2013 ordered to be quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.11153 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD) No.11153 of 2013 M.P.No.2 of 2013
Laxmanan
... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector Tirunelveli City.
2.The Assistant Commissioner Law and Order Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City.
3.K.Sarankapani ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Na.Ka.No.A2/25058/2012 dated 11.06.2013 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R1 & R2 Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Manimaran for R3
1/5
W.P.(MD) No.11153 of 2013
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.06.2013, wherein the first respondent has directed the respondent police to appoint a fresh Investigating officer and to conduct a fresh investigation.
2.The third respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioner and based on the same, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.492/2011 for offences under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(i) IPC r/w Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. The investigation was taken up by the second respondent and on completion of the investigation, a closure report was filed as 'mistake of fact' on 19.03.2012.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent, based on the petition submitted by the third respondent, has directed to conduct a re-investigation by appointing another officer. According to
the petitioner, the first respondent does not have any power or jurisdiction to order for a re-investigation and if at all the third respondent is aggrieved, he can only approach the concerned Court by
2/5
W.P.(MD) No.11153 of 2013
filing a protest petition and work out his remedy.
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent.
took up the investigation and had recorded the statement from the witnesses and on the basis of the materials that were collected during the course of investigation, a closure report came to be filed. Once a closure report is filed, the concerned Court has to send a notice to the de-facto complainant and if the de-facto complainant is aggrieved by the closure report, must file a protest petition and work out his remedy in accordance with law.
over the powers of the Court and has ordered for a re-investigation by appointing a new officer. The first respondent is not vested with any such power under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the impugned proceedings of the first
3/5
W.P.(MD) No.11153 of 2013
respondent dated 11.06.2013 is illegal and beyond jurisdiction and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court.
02.11.2022
Internet : Yes
RR
To 1.The District Collector Tirunelveli City.
2.The Assistant Commissioner Law and Order Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City.
4/5
W.P.(MD) No.11153 of 2013
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P. (MD)No.11153 of 2013
02.11.2022
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Collector possessed jurisdiction to order a re-investigation in a case registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after a closure report based on mistake of fact wa
Whether the police officer's power to order fresh investigation encroaches upon the functions of the Court in trial proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Laxmanan
The District Collector Tirunelveli City.
The Assistant Commissioner Law and Order Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City.
K. Sarankapani
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
