Thadayam Babu @ Babu Aged 43 v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 17.08.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.OP.No.18210 of 2016 Thadayam Babu @ Babu ...

Petitioner Vs

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vridhachalam Police Station, Vridhachalam.

2. The District Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

...

Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the first respondent to conduct further investigation and to add all the names of the accused persons in the final report filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vridhachalam in Crime No.876 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent.

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondents :Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to conduct further investigation and to add all the names of the accused persons in the final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vridhachalam in Crime No.876 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. On a complaint given by the petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.876 of 2015 against one Santhi, her brother Jayaguru and 10 unknown others. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the police had not properly investigated the accused and had not found out, who the 10 others are.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police hurriedly completed the investigation and filed the final report in S.T.C.No.168 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam only against Jayaguru and had left out Santhi and others.

5. It is settled law that when the police file the final report leaving out certain persons named in the FIR, an opportunity should be given to the defacto complainant to file a protest application. In this case, such an opportunity has not been given to the petitioner/defacto complainant.

6. In view of the above, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a protest application within a period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order in S.T.C.No.168 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vridhachalam and on such application being given, the same shall be dealt with as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and others reported in (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 762. If the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizable offence, the order taking cognizance is set aside, so that the learned Magistrate can here the protest peition. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

17.08.2016 sms To

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vridhachalam Police Station, Vridhachalam.

2. The District Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

P.N.PRAKASH,J, sms Crl.OP.No.18210 of 2016 17.08.2016