Judgment :- 1. The accused in C.C.No.637 of 1989 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Madurai has filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid C.C.No.637 of 1989 and quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Secs.120-B, 420, 465, 468 and 471, I.P.C. and it was taken on file by Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai in C.C.No.637 of 1989. The petitioner seeks to quash the same. The grounds on which quashing of the case is sought for are given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The allegations in it are as follows: While the petitioner was working in Central Prison at Madurai, a complaint was made against him, Somasundaram and Alwar Nagaiah for offences under Secs.120-B, 420, 465, 468 and 471, I.P.C. The respondent registered it in Crime No. 11 of 1983. After thorugh investigation, the respondent filed referred charge sheet, dated 23.7.1984. The learned Magistrate applied his mind and passed an order on 23.7.1984 in R.C.S.No.1064 of 1984. From 23.7.1984 he was discharged and no complaint was pending. The order of the Judicial Magistrate passed on 23.7.1984 is the judicial order, Its validity was not questioned before any competent forum. While so, he received communication, dated 3.4.1989 from the respondent that charge sheet is filed in Crime No. 11 of 1983 and it was taken on file by Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai in C.C.No.637 of 1989. After the passing of the order on the referred charge sheet or 23.7.1984 nothing was pending for investigation so as to enable the respondent to further investigate and file the present chargesheet. Taking cognizance of the charge sheet in C.C.No.637 of 1989 is vitiated and liable to be set aside. The offence against the accused relates to the year 1981. The charge sheet is filed after nine years. He cannot effectively defend him. On this ground also, the case is liable to be quashed. 3. Taking cognizance of the charge sheet in C.C.No.637 of 1989 is vitiated and liable to be set aside. The offence against the accused relates to the year 1981. The charge sheet is filed after nine years. He cannot effectively defend him. On this ground also, the case is liable to be quashed. 3. Mr.S.Elamurugan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends, that final report was filed by the respondent in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.I, Madurai referring the case as ‘undetected’ and on that final report, the learned Magistrate had passed an order on 23.7.1984 recording the same and in view of that order, the respondent cannot again investigate the case and file the charge sheet. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in filing the charge sheet and it is detrimental to the defence and the petitioner is prejudiced by this delay. Per contra, Mrs.D.Kalaiselvi, the learned Government Advocate, would contend that the above final report was filed only as ‘undetected’ and not a ‘mistake of fact’ because at that stage, materials were not available to make out the offence. She further contends, that after the above final report was filed, the complainant in that case took up the matter to the Government and after scrutiny, the Government ordered re-investigation of the case, to be done by C.B., C.I.D. by its order, dated 12.6.1986 and on the basis of which, the respondent filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and got permission for further investigation of the case and after completing investigation, has laid the charge sheet and it was taken on file. She would further state that the charge sheet is not barred by limitation and it cannot be quashed on the ground of any delay. 4. The case was registered in Crime No. 11 of 1983 for offences under Secs.420, 406, 408, 201 read with 34, I.P.C. against the petitioner and two others. On 23.7.1984, the Inspector of Police, D.C.B. Madurai has filed the final report before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No.I, Madurai. In it he has stated that he is referring the case as ‘undetected’ and on that final report, the learned Magistrate has passed an order “recorded” on the same day. On 23.7.1984, the Inspector of Police, D.C.B. Madurai has filed the final report before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No.I, Madurai. In it he has stated that he is referring the case as ‘undetected’ and on that final report, the learned Magistrate has passed an order “recorded” on the same day. Now the petitioner has received communication from the respondent under dated 3.4.1989 that investigation was completed and charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and case was taken on file in C.C.No.637 of 1989 and that he had to appear in court on 19.4.1989. On the ground that already a judicial order was passed. On 23.7.1984 recording the final report submitted by the respondent referring the case as undetected, the case is sought to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ruling reported in Ramasubbu K v. State 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 79. In that case, the investigating officer examined 10 witnesses during the course of investigation. Then he referred the case as “mistake of fact”, and submitted a report to the court. The Magistrate had accepted the same and ordered “recorded as mistake of fact”. Thereafter, as per directions of Superintendent of Police, reopened the investigation and filed the charge sheet on 22.1.1986. It was returned by the Magistrate on 14.2.1986 for clarification as to whether permission was obtained to reopen the case. On 15.2.1986 the inspector of Police, re-submitted the charge sheet stating the circumstances under which it was reopened and seeking permission to investigate the same. The Magistrate passed an order on 19.2.1986 granting permission to investigate the case. He also took cognizance of the case and numbered the case as C.C.No.176 of 1986 and issued summons to the accused. On receipt of the summons, the accused came to the High Court and filed petition for quashing the proceedings. It was allowed on the ground that once report was filed under Sec. 173, Crl.P.C. referring the case as “mistake of fact” and on the basis of the report the magistrate accepted the finding and passed orders “recorded as mistake of fact”, the subsequent investigation and filing of charge sheet are a11 not legal. The case before me differs on fact. The case before me differs on fact. In the instant case, a report was filed on 23.7.1984 by Inspector of Police, D.C.B., Madurai referring the case as ‘undetected’, The learned Magistrate has passed a cryptic order ‘recorded’. That would mean only on the day on which that final report was filed, the materials were not available and hence the report was filed recording the case as ‘undetected’. There is a sea of difference between a final report referring the case as “mistake of fact and referring the case as “undetected”. The order of the Magistrate also would show that the said fact was merely ‘recorded’ and nothing more than that. Moreover, in this case, as stated in the affidavit filed by Inspector of Police, C.B C.I.D. Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.10360 of 19901 he Investigating Officer has filed petition on 25.8.1986 for reopening the case before the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Madurai and he had passed an order permitting the investigating officer for further investigation of the case in his proceedings dated 3.9.1986. In the case covered by the ruling supra, no such permission was obtained from the learned Magistrate prior to commence me it of further investigation of the case. But only after the charge sheet was filed and it was returned for clarification whether permission was obtained for further investigation, permission was sought for and obtained. That was later in point of time, in that case than the filing of the charge sheet. But such is not the case here. Thus on three important aspects viz., the filing of the final report as “undetected”, and mere recording of the same by the learned Magistrate and obtaining permission later on application for further investigation, the facts of this case differ from the facts of the case on which the ruling in Ramasubbu K v. State 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 79, was rendered. 5. The learned Government Advocate relies upon the ruling report in KrishnaLal Gulati v. State, 1976 Crl.L.J. 1825. In that case, First Information Report was given on 25.3.1969. The Station Officer who conducted investigation submitted a report on 18.7.1969 and it was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate on 8.7.1970. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint to the higher authorities about the investigation. Orders were passed by the District Magistrate and conveyed to the Superintendent of Police to reinvestigate. In that case, First Information Report was given on 25.3.1969. The Station Officer who conducted investigation submitted a report on 18.7.1969 and it was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate on 8.7.1970. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint to the higher authorities about the investigation. Orders were passed by the District Magistrate and conveyed to the Superintendent of Police to reinvestigate. The investigating officer moved an application for submission to reinvestigate the case on 25.11.1972. The very same Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, permitted reinvestigation by his order, dated 25.11.1972. Then further investigation was made and ultimately charge sheet was laid. It was held that even if the final report has been accepted by the Magistrate he is not barred from taking cognizance on a subsequent report. The facts of the case before me are almost similar. In the case before me also, the first report referring the case as “undetected” was recorded by the learned Magistrate, and on application before the same Magistrate, he had later given permission for further investigation and then after investigation was made and charge sheet was laid. The contents of the final report referring the case as “undetected” was on the basis of the materials then available at that time. The learned Magistrate also has nor passed any order for discharge of the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. Mere recording of such report, cannot be equated to a final order of referring a case as “mistake of fact”. Thus, looking the case from any angle, I am unable to accept the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The second contention was that the filing of charge sheet was highly belated and this is causing prejudice to the accused. It is not the petitioners case that the charge sheet or proceedings are barred by time. While so, this contention is not tenable. 7. In view of the above, the petition which has no merits shall stand dismissed.