Gopalakrishnan v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police Crime

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No.13367 of 2025 Gopalakrishnan

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police (Crime), R-4, Soundarapandiyan Angadi Police Station, Chennai - 17.

(Cr.No.169 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order dated 06.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.11846 of 2024 on the file of the XVII Judicial Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and dismiss the same as against the revision petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muralidharan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been filed as against the order dated 06.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.11846 of 2024 on the file of the XVII Judicial Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondent for further investigation in Cr.No.169/2020.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as A2 in Cr.No.169/2020. After filing final report, the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.2302 of 2023. Pending trial, the respondent filed an application seeking permission for further investigation on the ground that the documents captured from the first accused and the second accused who downloaded those documents is very much essential. However, none of the documents have been submitted by the Investigation Officer. Modus operadi of how the profile of Bhagyalakshmi Agro Products was downloaded by using user name and password of second accused has not been explained by the Investigation Officer in a proper manner. Further, the Investigation Officer failed to submit any documents and evidence about the subscriber details of the alleged phone number to prove that the first accused had called the de facto complainant on the date of occurrence.

3. Therefore the prosecution filed the application for further investigation. That apart the accused has no say or locus objecting further investigation by way of interfering the investigation. In fact, the accused is not a proper party to interfere in the investigation. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.

4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.07.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order bkn To

1. XVII Judicial Magistrate - III, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The The Inspector of Police (Crime), R-4, Soundarapandiyan Angadi Police Station, Chennai - 17.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

bkn 08.07.2025