Madras High Court
S.Pugazhenthi vs State Rep.By on 6 March, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.No.1534 of 2020
1. S.Pugazhenthi
2. R.B.Rajkumar ..
Petitioners
Vs.
1.State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Law & Order,
N3-Muthialpet Police Station,
Chennai-600 001.
2.B.V.Suresh Kumar
(R2 impleaded as per order dated 11.03.2020
in Crl.M.P.No.2165/20 in Crl.R.C.No.211/2020) ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397(1)
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set
aside the order dated passed in Crl.M.P.No.3947 of 2018 on 08.11.2019
on the file of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate at G.T., Chennai.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For R1 : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.R.Sathiyamurthy
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the
impugned order dated 08.11.2019 passed in Crl.M.P No.3947/2018 by
the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
2. On 29.05.2012, one Mr.B.V.Sureshkumar, a practising
Advocate has given a complaint to the Muthialpet Police Station alleging
that a Nissan Micro car (Navy blue colour) bearing Registration No.TN
09BH 0345 was parked opposite to his house, where he used to park the
car, is causing nuisance and ingress for taking his car. Therefore, he
questioned the driver and owner of the car, there was scuffle. The person
used filthy language and assaulted along with his accomplice and had
caused grievous injury to the de facto complainant and his brother. Thus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2020
the complaint was registered in Crime No.890 of 2012 under Sections
341 & 323 I.P.C. After nearly 6 years, the police has filed a Final Report.
It appears that the Final Report was only filed after the de facto
complainant approaching the Court for direction. Thereafter, has closed
the complainant case on the ground of limitation. When the Final Report
filed and taken on file by the learned Magistrate, the de facto
complainant has filed a petition under Section 173 (a) of Cr.P.C., for
further investigation. The said consideration was positively considered by
the learned Magistrate and the order was passed by the learned
Magistrate on 08.11.2019 to conduct further investigation and to file
Additional Report within 15 days. The said order is impugned in this
Criminal Revision Case filed by the accused 1 and 2.
3. When the matter came up for admission, this Court on
17.01.2018 directed the respondent to complete the investigation in
Crime No.890 of 2012 pending on its file and file a Final Report as
expeditiously as possible. However, the respondent police unable to
proceed further in view of the fact that the legal issue regarding Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2020
173 Cr.P.C., particularly, the right of the de facto complainant to seek
further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., being subjudiced
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the reference to the larger
bench after the judgment of Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and
Others 2009(9) SCC 129, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that private complainant has no right to invoke Section 173(8) Cr.P.C
Thus, it is made clear that unless and until the larger bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reverse the findings of Reeta Nag case and hold that the
de facto complainant can seek further investigation under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered and the order of
the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 08.11.2019 will not survive.
4. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Criminal
Revision Case No.211 of 2020 be disposed of with a direction that the
respondent police shall take note of the fact primarily whether they are
liable to conduct further investigation pursuant to the request of the de
facto complainant, which should depend upon the out come of the
decision of the larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the light of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2020
the judgment rendered in Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and
Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Paini Vs. Nikita Prakash
Paini & Ors in S.L.P.No.3806 of 2018 dated 07.05.2018 had referred
the matter to the larger bench and this issue is still pending. That apart,
the respondent police would also take note of the fact that if the de facto
complainant is entitled to invoke Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. then also
whether subjective improvement in the complaint after six years is worthy
for investigation is to be decided and accordingly the Final Report has to
be filed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
06.03.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
To
1.The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Law & Order,
N3-Muthialpet Police Station,
Chennai-600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2020
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
rpl
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2020
06.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
