By observing that the application filed by the prosecution even after the commencement of the Trial in this case was maintainable, the Madras High Court allowed the present criminal revision petition preferred by the petitioner on being aggrieved by the order dated April 6, 2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the application filed for further investigation on behalf of the prosecution under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, was rejected by the Trial Court.
A Single bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner on being aggrieved by the order dated April 6, 2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the application filed for further investigation on behalf of the prosecution under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, was rejected by the Trial Court. The Single Judge bench was of the view that the de facto complainant by filing the revision wanted to bring to the notice of this Court of his perception that an erroneous order was passed which according to him led to injustice and therefore would not amount to taking over the prosecution.
The present criminal revision petition was instituted by the petitioner on being aggrieved by the order dated April 6, 2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the application filed for further investigation on behalf of the prosecution under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, was rejected by the Trial Court.
The sum and substance of the allegation in the instant matter against the accused was with respect to making a false promise to get a job as Assistant Engineer in the TNEB the accused had obtained money from the de facto complainant and cheated him. The accused collected large amounts of money from the complainant at different locations; however the prosecution did not collect the CCTV footage during the course of investigation. In order to furnish all the materials on record, an application was preferred by the prosecution. The same was dismissed by the Trial Court. In pursuance of the same, the present revision petition was moved before this Court.
After hearing the rival contentions from both the sides, and after pursuing all the material on record, the Court observed that the question that emerge for consideration before this Court were that, whether or not the Revision filed by the de-facto complainant against the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., is it maintainable.
The second question of law that was posed for consideration was whether the learned Magistrate was right in rejecting the application for further investigation on the ground that the trial commenced.
In respect to the first issue, the Court opined that in the instant case, the de facto complainant by filing the revision wanted to bring to the notice of this Court of his perception that an erroneous order was passed which according to him led to injustice and therefore would not amount to taking over the prosecution.
Secondly, the Court noted that under Section 372 of Cr.P.C, there was no bar for the de facto complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and thus the principle of private lawyer taking over the prosecution cannot be implied in the present case. Hence, the Court observed that the Revision filed by the de- facto complainant was maintainable.
With respect to the second issue, the Court noted that Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. does not place any fetter on the Police to conduct further investigation in the case after commencement of trial and whenever they come across any additional information, though it is just and necessary that the same be brought to the notice of the Court. However, at the same time the Court was also of the view that bringing out the truth is the primordial purpose of investigation.
Hence, the application filed by the prosecution served the said purpose, the Court noted. The application filed by the prosecution even after the commencement of the Trial in this case was maintainable, the Court eventually ruled.
As a result, the application was allowed.
Case name: GANESAN V. SHO, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM
Picture Source :
