Defacto complainant challenged dismissal of his petition seeking further investigation to implicate three additional accused deleted from the final report. The High Court noted he had already failed in a Section 319 Cr.P.C. petition which went unchallenged, and the trial was at the defence-witness stage. Revision dismissed.
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.
Crl.R.C.No.2025 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.2025 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.No.19070 of 2025
Selvakumar ... Petitioner/Accused Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Madathukulam Police Station, Tiruppur District. (Crime No.80 of 2020) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS, praying to call for the records and set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No. 0 4 iof 2025 in S.C.No.21 of 2022 dated 09.07.2025 0y the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the Order of dismissal of the petitioner’s
petition filed seeking further investigation under section 173 of BNSS.
1/4
Crl.R.C.No.2025 of 2025 2. It is the case of the petitioner/ defacto complainant that six accused
were involved in the occurrence; that the respondents without conducting proper investigation had deleted three accused in the final report; that the confession of the co-accused reveals that three other accused were also responsible for the injuries sustained by the petitioner; and that unless further investigation is ordered, the petitioner would be denied justice.
the final report was filed in the year 2022; that the petitioner was already examined as P.W.1 in the year 2024; that thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the other three accused; that the said petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 04.01.2025; that without challenging the said Order, the petitioner had sought for further investigation
at the belated stage; and that therefore, the Sessions judge is justified in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
now posted for examination of defence witness. The petitioner had not sought for further investigation immediately after filing of the final report. The petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C had sought for summoning the other
three accused, who, according to him, were also involved in the offence in 2/4
Crl.R.C.No.2025 of 2025 Crl.M.P.No.01 of 2024 before the trial Court. The said petition came to be
dismissed on 04.01.2025 and the petitioner had not challenged the same. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the Order passed
by the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the petition filed for further investigation at this stage.
5. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.12.2025
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vrc
To
1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet.
2. The Inspector of Police, Madathukulam Police Station, Tiruppur District.
3/4
Crl.R.C.No.2025 of 2025
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vrc
Crl.R.C.No.2025 of 2025
04.12.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the defacto complainant's petition seeking further investigation under Section 173 BNSS at a belated stage after prosecution evidence was closed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Selvakumar
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Madathukulam Police Station, Tiruppur District (Crime No.80 of 2020)
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
