Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1002 (MAD)

R. Ponnuthai v. Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul

2016-03-09

P.N.PRAKASH

body2016
ORDER : This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to alter the FIR by including Sections 342 and 506(i) r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act in Crime No.360 of 2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent police and to file a final report. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.360 of 2015 on 13.12.2015 under Sections 323 and 294(b) IPC against one Renuka. It is the case of the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, that the FIR should be altered by including Sections 342 and 506(i) IPC. 4. Unlike code of Civil Procedure, where pleadings can be amended, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, FIR cannot be amended. However, during the course of investigation, if sufficient evidence surfaces for the commission of the said offences, it is needless to say that the Investigating Officer can add the same in the final report, if any. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.