Madras High Court
R.Sathiya vs The State Rep. By on 30 July, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.161 of 2021
R.Sathiya : Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.1402/2015) : Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under section
397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed
in Cr.M.P No.Unnumbered of 2021 in Crime No.1402 of 2021, dated
02.02.2021 on the file of the Mahila Court (Magisterial Level),
Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaisamy
Standing counsel for
State Government (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order
passed in Cr.M.P No. Unnumbered of 2021 in Crime No.1402 of
2021, dated 02.02.2021 on the file of the Mahila Court (Magisterial
Level), Nagercoil.
2.It is seen from the records that the petitioner herein
filed a petition under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the Mahila
Court (Magisterial Level), Nagercoil, seeking for further
investigation in respect of Crime No.1402 of 2012, since during
investigation, the respondent police did not recover the unfilled
cheque leaves, stamp papers and unfilled signed white sheets from
the accused person namely Lingamuthu. The said petition was
dismissed by the trial court, on 02.02.2021 stating that the enquiry
case was taken cognizance in JM II, Nagercoil, on 24.03.2015 and
charges were framed and summons issued to LW1 to LW3 and the
case was transferred to this court in 2018 and pending for
appearance of LW1 to LW3, as to this stage, this application for
further investigation is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner is before this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/complainant argued that the investigation done by the
respondent police is totally biased and the respondent police has
not conducted the investigation in a fair and proper manner and the
respondent failed to seize the documents from the custody of the
accused for the purpose of investigation and hence, further
investigation is necessary and prays that the criminal revision has
to be allowed.
5.On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel
appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the case stands
posted for trial and summons were sent to some witnesses and
hence, at this stage, the petition for further investigation is not
necessary and prays that the Criminal Revision has to be dismissed.
6.It is admitted on both sides that now the case stands
posted for trial before the trial court. Hence, at this stage, it is not
necessary to order for further investigation. Therefore, it is held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
that it is not necessary to interfere into the findings of the trial
court.
7.In the result, this criminal revision fails and the same is
dismissed.
30.07.2021
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.
1.The Mahila Court (Magisterial Level),
Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
Judgment made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.161 of 2021
30.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
