Mariyappan v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.08.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.No.23072 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12045 & 12046 of 2019

1. Mariyappan

2. Hemanthraj

3. Vijayakumar

4. Juhaibh

5. Isaki Nagaraj

6. Tharani ... Petitioners/Accused vs.

The State rep. by Inspector of Police, C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai - 600 001.

... Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records in C.C.No.1676 of 2018 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Georgetown, Chennai and to quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1676 of 2018 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Georgetown, Chennai. 2.The respondent police registered an FIR against the accused persons under Section 143 and 188 of IPC. After the

completion of the investigation, a final report was filed before the Court below for an offence under Section 147 and 290 of IPC. 3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the final report filed before the Court below is liable to be quashed on the two grounds. The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent police ought not to have conducted an investigation by registering an FIR under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon by this Court in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and another]. 4.The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the informant and the investigator in this case is the same police officer.

The learned counsel further submitted that the police officer apart from being the informant has also recorded the statements given by the witnesses and has also filed a final report and the entire investigation is vitiated. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his statements relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal vs. State of Punjab and Varinderkumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.

5.Heard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police.

6.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record. 7.This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The issues that have been raised in this petition are squarely covered by the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The entire investigation is vitiated since the informant became the investigator in this case.

8.In view of the above, the proceeding in C.C.No.1676 of 2018 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Georgetown, Chennai is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

ssr Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

To

1. The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Georgetown, Chennai.

2. -Do- Thro' The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Egmore, Chennai.

3. The Inspector of Police, C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai - 600 001.

4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, Advocate, SR.No.73542 Crl.O.P.No.23072 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12045 & 12046 of 2019 Kak(09/10/2019)