Disposed¶43

A.Rajaraman v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC4 Dec 2025CRL A/1612/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, single Judge (Sunder Mohan J.), Crl.A.No.1612 of 2025, decided 04.12.2025. Defacto complainant's appeal against rejection of prayer for further investigation and addition of three accused (Elumalai, Koteshwaran, Devaki) in Crime No.170 of 2023 and final report in Spl.S.C.No.04 of 2024 before the Special Court, Villupuram. Statutes: Section 14-A, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 319 Cr.P.C. Outcome: appeal disposed of, impugned order sustained, liberty reserved to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. during trial.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the Criminal Appeal is disposed of with the above observations, the Special Court's findings being left undisturbed, subject to the trial Judge's liberty to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. if evidence emerges against the three persons during trial.

A.Rajaraman Vs The Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.A.No.1612 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.A.No.1612 of 2025

¶7

A.Rajaraman

¶8

. .. Appellant /defacto complainant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District.

¶11

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valathi Sub Division, Gingee.

¶12

3. The Inspector of Police, Valathy Police Station, Melmalaiyanur Taluk, Villupuram District. … Respondents/Complainant

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A [2 ] of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order dated 14.08.2025 in Crl.MP No.1694 of 2024 on the file Page No.1 of 8

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.A.No.1612 of 2025

¶16

of the Special C ourt for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Villupuram to include the names of Elumalai, Koteshwaran and Devaki in the Crime No.170 of 2023 and file final report in Spl.S.C.No.04 of 2024.

¶17

Page No.2 of 8

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.A.No.1612 of 2025

¶20

For Appellants : Mr.S.Lingesh for Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar For Respondent s : Mr.S.Balaji Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal has been filed challenging the Order passed by learned

¶23

Special Court dismissing the petitioner/defacto complainant’s petition for

¶24

further investigation and include 3 other accused in the final report.

¶25

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had lodged a complaint against 4 persons; that the respondent without conducting investigation in

¶26

effective manner had deleted name s of 3 accused persons and had filed final report against one accused person; that hence, he had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1694 of 2024; that the Sessions Judge found that three other

¶27

Page No.3 of 8

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.A.No.1612 of 2025

¶30

persons were not involved in the offence; that the finding of the Sessions

¶31

judge is erroneous as the three accused have to be tried along with the

¶32

accused in the final report; and prayed for further investigation.

¶33

3. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] per contra

¶34

submitted that the investigating officer had conducted investigation fairly; that he is not obliged to believe the statement of the defacto complainant and only on the basis of the materials available, he had filed the final report; that the learned Judge after perusing the materials had come to the right conclusion; and that there is no infirmity in the impugned Order.

¶35

4. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge by t he impugned Order had considered the report of the respondent and held that at this stage there is no material to include the other 3 accused in the final

¶36

report. This Court finds no infirmi t y in the said findings. However, it is

¶37

Page No.4 of 8

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Crl.A.No.1612 of 2025

¶40

made clear that if, during the course of trial, if there is any evidence against

¶41

those three persons or any other person, the learned Judge is at liberty to