Madras High Court
S.Vaikundarajan vs State Rep. By on 2 August, 2024
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 26.04.2024
Pronounced On : 02.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.RC(MD). No.1385 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.4841 of 2023
S.Vaikundarajan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1
Vs.
1. State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Organized Crime Unit,
Tirunelveli District
in Crime No.3 of 2022
2.J.Chenthil Rajan ... Respondents
(R2 impleaded as per order of this Court in Crl.M.P(MD).No.4841 of
2024 in Crl.R.C(MD).No.1385 of 2023)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of the lower court passed in Crl.M.P.No.29743
of 2023 dated 27.11.2023 on the file Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli and direct
the Court to monitor the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2022 on the file
respondent police.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh
For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambiselvan,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram,
Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Anand for R2
ORDER
The petitioner herein has filed this Criminal Revision Case as against the
order passed in Crl.M.P.No.29743 of 2023 dated 27.11.2023 on the file Judicial
Magistrate, Tirunelveli and direct the Court to monitor the investigation in Crime
No.3 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.
2.The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.3 of 2022, against
the petitioner herein and other accused for the alleged offence under sections
147, 341, 294(b), 323 and 427 of IPC. The petitioner has filed this petition
before this Court to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.29743 of 2023, on
the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirunelveli, and consequently, transfer the
investigation and to monitor the investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
3. The petitioner and the complainant, namely, the petitioner in
Cr.M.P.No. 4841 of 2024, namely, Senthil Rajan, are family members, and both
are partners of the partnership firm, namely, V.V.Minerals. Some dispute arose
between them. There are number of litigations pending against them and many
litigations have already been disposed of. In one litigation, the Honourable
Mrs.Justice Vimala was appointed as “caretaker” of the said company's
properties with the assistance two advocates. The two advocates inspected the
premises on 23.04.2021.
4. On that day, Senthil Rajan's family members visited the premises which
the advocates measured and took the photograph of the items sealed by the
Government, and, there was some scuffle. In the scuffle, the petitioner and other
accused were said to have assaulted the camera man and also they damaged his
properties, thereby, they committed offence under the various provisions of IPC.
Hence, they lodged a complaint before Uvari police station, but FIR was not
registered there was no action on the complaint and hence, they filed the
Cr.M.P.No.1849 of 2021, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the Judicial
Magistrate cum District Munsif, Ramanathapuram and the learned trial Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
directed to conduct enquiry following the dictum of the “Lalitha Kumari” case
and submit a report. Thereafter, FIR was registered in Crime No.3 of 2022 and
subsequently, Senthil Rajan filed a writ petition before this court, to transfer the
investigation to the CBCID. This court allowed the writ petition and transferred
the investigation to the CBCID. CBCID registered the case in the Crime No.3 of
2022, and thereafter, conducted investigation, and filed the final report before
Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323 and 427 of IPC. Subsequently, the same was
taken on file, in PRC No.05 of 2024 and at this stage, the petitioner filed the
Cr.M.P.No.29743 of 2023, seeking the following prayer:
It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to monitor the investigation in Crime No.3
of 2022, on the file of the respondent police.
4.1.On 27.11.2023, the same was dismissed by the Learned trial Judge,
after passing the following order.
Petition Heard. This petitioner is a Accused in
the petition mentioned case in Crime No.3 of 2022.
This petitioner filed this petition to monitor this case.
On perusal of the petition, this petitioner has no loco
standy to file this petition at this stage of the
investigation. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this revision before this court.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions:
The dismissal of the petition, on the grounds that the accused has no locus standy
in filing the petition is not maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Hon'bel
Supreme Court, reported in 2019 (17) SCC 1 and 2012 (3) SCC 126. The learned
Counsel further submitted that in the case where the rival complaint of the
petitioner is pending, the petitioner has right to file the petition to monitor the
investigation. In the said circumstances, the dismissal order suffers from
apparent illegalities.
6. The Senior Counsel, Thiru.Shanmugasundaram, representing Mr.
R.Anand, appearing for the “Senthil Rajan”/2nd respondent, made the following
submissions:
6.1.The FIR was registered against the accused. He was arrayed as accused
No.1. In the said circumstances, after transferring the investigation as per order
of this court, the investigating officer filed the final report before the Court
below. The investigation was completed. After completion of the investigation,
transfer of investigation at the instance of the accused is not maintainable. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
also specifically raised the question of maintainability of the prayer of the
accused and he placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Three
Judge's Bench of the Supreme Court reported in 2018 10 SCC 753. The learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not come up with clean
hands and has suppressed the material facts. The petitioner lodged a complaint
before the Jurisdictional police station and there was no action and therefore, he
preferred the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, and the same was dismissed. The same has not been challenged and
when he has suppressed the fact, revision also is to be dismissed for the
suppression of material facts. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel seeks for
dismissal of this petition.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, reiterated the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel and he specifically stated that the case
was in the PRC stage, and hence, the petition is not maintainable.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on records and also all the material furnished by
both parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
9. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrayed as accused in the Crime No.3 of
2022, on the file of respondent Police. He and other accused are facing the
allegation that they caused damage to the properties, and assaulted and caused
injuries and abused and thereby, offences under IPC and the offence under the
Tamil Nadu Public Property Damages Act were slapped. They made counter-
allegation against the private respondent herein. In the said complaint, there was
no action, and hence, he filed a petition under Section 156 Cr.P.C, before the
learned Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate and the same was dismissed.
Subsequently, without challenging the same, and filing this petition without
disclosing the dismissal order amounts to suppression of material fact. As on
date, there is no complaint pending either before the police authority or before
the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to transfer
the investigation deserves to be rejected.
10. Without pendency of any complaint, and his prayer to monitor the
investigation is not legally permissible.
11.The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.3 of 2022 on the file of the
first respondent Police. The second respondent is the complainant in the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
case. The first respondent police completed the investigation and filed final
report and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.5 of 2024. the petitioner's
counter complaint has already dismissed. As on date, neither complaint nor any
proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pending. Therefore, as rightly argued
by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the second respondent, he is the
accused and he has no locus standi to seek the remedy to transfer the
investigation that too after the completion of the investigation and filing of the
final report. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel on 2019 (17) SCC 1 is
not applicable to facts of this case and same is confined to facts of that case, in
which, the case was pending without any finding and adjudication was pending
on the petition filed under Section 156 of Cr.P.C., before the concerned
jurisdictional Court. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking the special
circumstances, directed the investigating agency to consider the same. But here
in this case, the petition was already dismissed, and hence, there was no further
adjudication.
12.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel rightly relied the judgment of
the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court reported in 2018 (10)
SCC 753. In the said judgment earlier Three-judges Bench also has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
followed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly held the accused has no right to
file the transfer of investigation or monitoring the investigation. Hence, apart
from that, the petitioner suppressed the material fact ie., in all fairness, he should
have fairly disclosed the dismissal of his complaint under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C to take action against the private respondent herein. But he has not
disclosed the same. On the date of filing this petition, neither the petitioner's
complaint nor any FIR is registered on the basis of the complaint given by the
petitioner is pending to transfer the same to the CBCID and conduct the further
investigation along with the P.R.C.No.5 of 2024. Therefore, this petition is
misconceived one. In the above circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the
revision.
13.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed by
confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli in
Crl.M.P.No.29743 of 2023 dated 27.11.2023.
02.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Organized Crime Unit,
Tirunelveli District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1385 of 2023
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
Pre-delivery Order made in
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
