Madras High Court
Mrs.Leela vs State Rep.By The on 7 January, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2020
1.Mrs.Leela
2.Mrs.Libera
3.Mrs.Rathnam ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State rep.by the
Inspector of Police,
W-20 All Women Police Station,
Adyar,
Chennai - 20.
2. Mrs.Arul Nisha ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to
set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2020 in C.C.No.4 of 2019 (now
renumbered as C.C.No.311 of 2020) dated 03.03.2020, on the file of the learned
Magistrate of Mahila Court, Alandur.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2020
For Petitioners : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.A.Madhan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
***
ORDER
The first respondent-Police filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2020 in
C.C.No.311 of 2020 to receive additional documents before the learned
Additional Mahila Judge, Alandur and the said petition was allowed by the
learned Judge, by an order dated 03.03.2020. Challenging the said order, the
petitioners/accused are before this Court.
2. When the Criminal Revision came up for admission, this Court ordered
notice to the second respondent, returnable by 21.12.2020. On 21.12.2020, this
Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to take private notice to
the second respondent, returnable by 07.01.2021. Today when the matter came
up for hearing, none appeared for the petitioners to represent their case and no
proof of service is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2020
3. The said petition in Crl.M.P.No.244 of 2020 was objected by the
petitioners/accused before the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Alandur that
the investigation officer has not given any intimation to the Court regarding
investigation, hence, it is abuse of process of Court.
4. The learned Additional Mahila Judge, Alandur, citing the reliance of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandlay Case, 2009 (6), SCC 346
and R.S.Pai 2002 (5) SCC 82, allowed the petition, subject to proof of relevancy
and on condition, the petitioners/respondents objection will be elucidated at
the time of trial and end of case.
5. It is settled principles of law that granting permission to the police for
further investigation, there is no legal obligation for the Court to hear the
accused before any such direction is made. It is also settled principles of law
that power of the Police to conduct further investigation, after laying final
report, is recognized under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2020
6. In the case on hand, the learned Judge, by rightly following the
principles laid down in Ram Chandlay Case, 2009 (6), SCC 346 and R.S.Pai 2002
(5) SCC 82, allowed the petition. The terms contained in Section 173(8) of
Cr.P.C., the investigation Officer has got power to take further investigation and
there is no need to accord audience to the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
also held that while dealing with the petition filed for additional documents,
liberal view has to be approached and the documents can be received and
relevancy of the documents can be decided only at the time of pronouncing
judgments.
7. In such a view of the matter, there is no circumstance warranting
interference to the order passed by the learned Additional Mahila Court,
Alandur, which deserved to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. In the
result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
07.01.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes.
rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2020
To
The Inspector of Police,
W-20 All Women Police Station,
Adyar,
Chennai - 20.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2020
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rns
Crl.R.C.No.1167 of 2020
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
