Madras High Court
Dr.K.Ramalakshmi vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 August, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 23.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.RC(MD)No.312 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3092 of 2021
Dr.K.Ramalakshmi : Petitioner/Petitioner/
De-facto complainant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Perumalpuram Police Station,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 r/w
401 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure against the order passed
by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, in Crl.MP No.3007 of
2021 in CC No.177 of 2012 dated 01.04.2021
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman
Standing Counsel for State
(Criminal side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order
passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, in Crl.MP No.
3007 of 2021 in CC No.177 of 2012, dated 01.04.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2.It reveals from the records that the petitioner/de-facto
complainant and her husband preferred a complaint before the
Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli, on 29.03.2010 and the same
was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Palayamkottai for enquiry and the same was also forwarded to the
respondent police for further enquiry. In the complaint, it is stated
that the accused persons threatening her and her husband in order
to misuse the signed unfilled cheques, pro-notes, stamp papers and
plain papers. While so, the petitioner preferred a complaint before
the respondent police, on 12.07.2010 and on the basis of the
complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.349
of 2010 and after investigation, filed charge sheet before the
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. In the meantime, the
petitioner filed a petition in Crl.MP No.3007 of 2021 in CC No.177
of 2012 to order for further investigation in Crime No.349 of 2010
by the respondent police and to submit additional charge sheet. The
trial court dismissed the said petition, on 01.04.2021. Challenging
the same order, the petitioner is before this court.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4.The main contention raised on the side of the petitioner
is that the police party by themselves are also entitled to file a
further additional report and if that being the case, the right of the
aggrieved informant/complainant seek redress on before the
Judicial Magistrate for further investigation of the criminal case
because of the omissions by the investigating police authorities
beyond any cavil of doubt and there are serious omissions by the
police party in the investigation of the criminal case and despite
furnishing of specific materials and documents, the police party had
not filed a comprehensive final report bringing out the truth and
the Court may direct the police to investigate further even after
taking cognizance and while conducting of the trial, if defects in the
investigation are noticed and the delay on the part of the petitioner
in making the request for further investigation is not willful and the
application is filed at the belated stage cannot be a reason to reject
the claim of the petitioner and in fact, the delay is not attributable
to the petitioner and as the victim/complainant received the witness
summon only recently from the court and she was earlier
submitting representations to the police and there is no intention
on the part of the petitioner to delay the trial or protract the
proceedings and even a time bound order from this court will take
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
care of such predicament and the petitioner undertakes to
cooperate in the early disposal of the case and prays that the
criminal revision has to be allowed. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted the rulings
reported in 2013(5) SCC 762 (Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali and
others) and 2006(7)SCC 296 ( Popular Muthaiah Vs. State).
5.On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel
appearing for the respondent/State argued that the trial court after
careful perusal of the documents has passed the impugned order
and there is no need to interfere into the findings of the trial court.
6.In this case, on the basis of the complaint given by the
petitioner, dated 12.09.2020, FIR in Crime No.349 of 2010 was
registered for the offence under section 40 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and Section 506(ii)
IPC as against two named persons and some unknown persons and
after completion of the investigation, final report was filed by the
Inspector of Police and the same was taken on file in CC No.177 of
2012 under section 4 of Exorbitant Interest Act and 506(ii) IPC and
section 4 of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and in the charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
sheet, totally 37 persons were arrayed as accused in CC No.177 of
2012. The petitioner herself in the complaint admitted that she and
her husband borrowed loan from several persons and nearly Rs.
87,00,000/- was due towards her money-lenders and due to it,
several cases were instituted against her and her husband before
various Courts under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
and other provisions of law.
7.Further, in this case, during the year 2012, charge sheet
was filed and the Court took the cognizance in CC No.177 of 2012
as against 37 accused and summons were sent to 37 accused for
their appearance. Further, the trial court sent summons to this
petitioner to adduce her evidence. At this stage, the petitioner filed
this petition. No sufficient reasons were stated by this petitioner for
delay in filing this petition.
8.The learned standing counsel appearing for the
prosecution submitted that the Magistrate has power to order
further investigation as contemplated under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C
and the power is available even at post cognizance stage I.e., till
charges are framed and it is also settled by various judgments of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the Hon'ble Apex Court that commencement of trial is not the stage
of taking cognizance, but till charges framed and in this case,
charges were already framed and the trial has already been
commenced and under these circumstances, the petition filed by
the petitioner is not maintainable and additional charge sheet is not
maintainable and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.
9.In this case, charges were framed during the year 2012
and the case is ripe for trial. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner pointed out the power to order further investigation
as contemplated under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C and the power is
available even at post cognizance stage I.e., till charges are framed
and commencement of trial is not the stage of taking cognizance,
but till charges framed and hence, he argued that this petition is
maintainable.
10.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer Section 173(2)
of Criminal Procedure Code, which would run thus:-
173.Report of police officer on
completion of investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
(2)(i)As soon as it is completed, the
officer in charge of the police station shall
forward to a Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance of the offence on a police report, a
report of the form prescribed by the State
Government stating-
(a)he name of the parties;
(b)the nature of the information;
(c)the name of the persons who appear
to be acquainted with the circumstances of
the case;
(d)whether any offence appears to
have been committed and, if so, ho whom;
(e)whether the accused has been
arrested;
(f)whether he has been released on his
bond and , if so, whether with or without
sureties;
(g)whether he has been forwarded in
custody under section 170 been attached
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
where investigation relates to an offence
under section 376, 376-A, 376-AB, 376-B, 376-
C, 376-D, 376-DA, 376-DB or section 376-E of
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
10.Further, on perusal of the ruling reported in 2019
(17)SCC 1 (Vinubhai Haribhai Malaiya and others Vs. State of
Gujarat), it has been held that ordering of further investigation
after summon of police report under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C at post
cognizance stage until trial commences I.e., charges are framed
and the power can be exercised suo moto by the Magistrate himself
depending on the fact of each case. In this case, the Magistrate
after perusing the records, took the cognizance. Further, the police
has not sought permission from the trial court for further
investigation. In this case, the trial court took the cognizance and
framed the charges and posted the case for examination of
witnesses. Before framing of charges, no permission for further
investigation was sought for. The reasons assigned for filing this
criminal revision petition is not reasonable. Hence, the trial court
correctly came to the conclusion the there is no need for further
investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11.In the result, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.312 of 2021
23.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
