Sundar vs State Rep. By
2025 Latest Caselaw 4256 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4256 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2025

Madras High Court

Sundar vs State Rep. By on 21 March, 2025

                                                                                          Crl.R.C.(MD)No.84 of 2024

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              Reserved on              : 03.03.2025

                                              Pronounced on            : 21.03.2025

                                                            CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

                                               Crl.R.C.(MD)No.84 of 2024
                                                          and
                                              Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1096 of 2024


                    Sundar                                                                 ... Petitioner


                                                                 Vs.

                    State rep. by
                    The Inspector of Police,
                    District Crime Branch,
                    Theni, Theni District.
                    (Crime No.7 of 2021)                                                  ... Respondent

                    Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401
                    Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 27.10.2023
                    passed in Crl.M.P.No.7630 of 2021 in C.C.No.139 of 2021 on the file of
                    the Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni, Theni District and set aside the same.

                                     For Petitioner       : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar

                                     For Respondent       : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
                                                            Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                    1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 05:18:12 pm )
                                                                                        Crl.R.C.(MD)No.84 of 2024




                                                          ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in

Crl.M.P.No.7630 of 2021 in C.C.No.139 of 2021 dated 27.10.2023 on the

file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Theni, dismissing the petition for

further investigation filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Karuppasamy, FIR

came to be registered in Crime No.7 of 2021 against the petitioner for the

alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(1) IPC and after completing

the investigation, the respondent has laid the final report against the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(1) IPC and the case

was taken on file in C.C.No.139 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate Court, Theni.

3. The case of the defacto complainant is that the defacto

complainant is working as a teacher in Kallar Government Primary School

at Poothipuram Village, Theni District, that the defacto complainant and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 05:18:12 pm )

the petitioner had acquaintance for the past more than 10 years, that the

petitioner approached the defacto complainant and informed him that he

will get job for his wife, if he arranged a sum of Rs.70 lakhs, that the

defacto complainant believing the words of the petitioner has given Rs.70

lakhs to the petitioner on 24.01.2019, for which, the petitioner has issued a

cheque drawn on Canara Bank, Kodangipatti Branch in favour of one

Mrs.Prabha, who is the aunty of the defacto complainant's wife, that the

petitioner has given evasive reply to get job for the defacto complainant's

wife, that the petitioner again approached the defacto complainant and

requested a hand loan of Rs.50 lakhs to start petrol bunk agreeing to repay

the same within 6 months, that the defacto complainant has arranged the

said amount with the help of his co-teachers and gave to the petitioner,

that the petitioner has not repaid both the amounts despite repeated

demands, that when the same was demanded again, the petitioner caused

criminal intimidation and that the complaint given by the defacto

complainant came to be registered.

4. The case of the petitioner is that there is absolutely no prima

facie case made out against the petitioner, that the complaint of the defacto

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 05:18:12 pm )

complainant is concocted cock and bull story, that the High Court in the

bail order has raised doubt over the undertaking affidavit alleged to have

been given by the petitioner, that the respondent has not conducted any

investigation in that regard and that therefore the petitioner was

constrained to file the present petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for

further investigation.

5. The learned Magistrate, by mainly observing that the petition for

further investigation which came to be filed after framing of charges and

when the case was pending for examination of witnesses, cannot be

entertained, dismissed the petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that there is absolutely no legal bar or prohibition for filing the petition for

further investigation subsequent to the framing of charges and that the

learned Magistrate, without considering the legal position, dismissed the

petition mechanically without going into the merits of the case.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Rampal Gautam and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 05:18:12 pm )

others Vs. The State by Mahadevapura Police Station, Bengaluru and

another reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 164 has specifically held that

further investigation can be ordered even after the charge sheet has been

filed and trial was commenced and the relevant passage is extracted

hereunder:-

“12. At the outset, we may record that a direction to conduct further investigation even after filing of the chargesheet and commencement of the trial is permissible in law as has been held by a catena of judgments of this Court. Reference in this regard may be made to Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others ((2004) 5 SCC 347) wherein, this Court observed that the prime consideration for directing further investigation is to arrive at the truth and to do real substantial justice. The Court further observed that further investigation and re- investigation stand altogether on a different footing. Even de hors any direction from the Court, it is open to the police to conduct a proper investigation notwithstanding the fact that the Court has already taken cognizance on the strength of a police report submitted earlier. However, a caveat was added that before directing such investigation, the Court or the concerned police officer has to apply mind to the material available on record and arrive at a satisfaction that investigation of such allegations is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 05:18:12 pm )

necessary for the just decision of the case.”

8. Considering the settled legal position above referred, the only

reason assigned for dismissing the petition filed under Section 173(8)

Cr.P.C. that charges have already been framed and that since the petition

came to be filed after framing of charges, the same cannot be held

maintainable, cannot legally be sustained.

9. As already pointed out, the learned Magistrate has not considered

the merits of the claim but only on the ground of maintainability, the

petition was ordered to be dismissed.

10. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the matter

is to be remitted back to the learned Magistrate to consider the petition

filed for further investigation afresh and decide the same on merits and in

accordance with law.