Madras High Court
S.Vijay vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 April, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3039 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3039 of 2025
S.Vijay .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police
Ramanathapuram
Ramanathapuram District
2. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Ramanathapuram District .. Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records with regard to the Final Report in C.C.No. 5 of 2023
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ramanathapuram and set
aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct
further investigation of the case in Crime No. 18 of 2021 on the file of the
second respondent police within the stipulated period that may be
prescribed by this Court and file final report.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:55:20 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3039 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and consequently direct the second
respondent to conduct further investigation of the case in Crime No. 18 of
2021 on the file of the second respondent police.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is the defacto complainant in this case and based on the
complaint given by the defacto complainant the second respondent
registered a case in Crime No. 18 of 2021 and thereafter without
conducting proper investigation filed final report and the same is now
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.
3. The accused Sowmya wife of Seenivasan had married several
persons amongst one of the husbands is K.Suresh, son of Kalimuthan of
Siruvayal village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.Since the
said Sowmya loved and married K. Suresh, a close relative of the
petitioner, he believing the silver coated words she assured to get job
through her uncle and the then Transport Minister Mr.Vijaya Baskar .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:55:20 pm )
Similarly several persons have been exploited and thereby they have
collected Rs.18,00,000/- and 136 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels and
thereafter escaped and married one Seenivasan, a lab technician at Salem.
The respondent police without conducting proper investigation and
without taking steps to seize the gold jewels and amount from the accused
Sowmya laid charge sheet against Sowmya, her one of the husbands
K.Suresh and A.Satheeesh and the same was taken on file by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram in C.C.No. 5 of 2023 and the
same is pending. The first accused Sowmya ‘s whereabouts could not be
traced out by the respondent police and there is no progress in this case for
the past two years. The respondent police did not conduct proper
investigation in this case and even without recording any confession
statement and also without taking any steps to recover the amount of Rs.18
lakhs and also without seizing the exploited jewels of 136 ½ sovereigns of
gold ornaments laid charge sheet, thereby filed this petition.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondents would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the
petitioner the second respondent police registered a case and thereafter
they conducted investigation and filed final report and based on the final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:55:20 pm )
report the trial Court has taken cognizance and the same is now pending.
First Information Report was registered in the year 2021 as against
Sowmya. Thereafter during investigation they included other accused and
charge sheet has been laid as against the three persons and the said
Sowmya, The second respondent conducted proper investigation and filed
final report. There are no grounds to set aside the final report and thereby
the transfer of investigation would not arise. The petitioner has not taken
any steps immediately after filing of charge sheet and therefore this
petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the records it is seen that based on the complaint
lodged by the petitioner the second respondent registered a case and
thereafter they conducted investigation and filed final report and based on
the same the trial Court has taken cognizance and the same is pending for
further proceedings. While so, now the petitioner has filed this petition to
quash the charge sheet and to transfer the investigation from the second
respondent to some other agency. First Information Report has been
registered in the year 2021 and charge sheet has been filed in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:55:20 pm )
2023 and now the petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2025
alleging that the second respondent has not recovered the jewels and cash
and not even recorded confession statement . So far as recording
confession statement is concerned the accused has to give confession
statement and the respondent police cannot compel the accused to give
confession. Merely because confession statement has not been recorded
and based on the confession statements the properties were not recovered
is not a ground to quash the charge sheet. There are prima facie materials
available as against the accused and thereby the trial Court has taken
cognizance at this stage merely because the investigation agency failed to
recover the jewels is not a ground to quash the proceedings and it is for the
trial Court to pass appropriate orders at the time of passing judgment in
respect of amount and jewels and therefore there are no grounds to quash
the charge sheet. Further the petitioner also has not approached the trial
Court immediately after filing of charge sheet, therefore at this stage the
prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered and hence the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:55:20 pm )
7. Accordingly the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
29.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram
2. The Superintendent of Police
Ramanathapuram
Ramanathapuram District
3. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Ramanathapuram District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:55:20 pm )
P.DHANABAL,J.
aav
29.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:55:20 pm )
