ORDER : This petition has been filed to call for the records in connection with the final report filed by the 2nd respondent in re-open petition in Crime No. 187 of 12 on the file of the 3rd respondent police, set aside the same and consequently direct the CBI or any other independent investigation agency to re-investigate the Criminal Case in Crime No. 187 of 12 on the file of the 3rd respondent police. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that on the complaint given by this petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No. 187 of 2012 on 30.05.2012 against one Palanisamy, who is said to be a sitting M.L.A. The respondent police conducted investigation and filed a closure report, not satisfied with which, the petitioner herein approached this Court in Crl. O.P. (MD) 13453 of 2012 for re-investigation of the case. 4. This Court, by order dated 02.11.2012, directed the Superintendent of Police to appoint a competent officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case in Crime No. 187 of 2012, pursuant to which, the Superintendent of Police directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi to conduct the investigation. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the investigation of the case in Crime No. 187 of 2012 and after examination of some witnesses, came to the conclusion that there is no material to file a final report against the proposed accused and therefore, closed the case as mistake of tact on 21.03.2013. A closure report was also filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, aggrieved by which, the defacto complainant is before this Court to set aside the same and direct the CBI to investigate the case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant took pains to read through the closure report and submitted that the investigation is perfunctory. 6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and went through the closure report. 7. On reading of the complaint, it is seen that the defacto complainant and the opposite party were friends and both were in a political party and on account of some incident, they had fallen apart. 8. 6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and went through the closure report. 7. On reading of the complaint, it is seen that the defacto complainant and the opposite party were friends and both were in a political party and on account of some incident, they had fallen apart. 8. Be that as it may, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has enquired several witnesses, who had not supported the version of the defacto complainant and thus independently came to the conclusion that there is no material to file a charge sheet against the proposed accused. Admittedly, the defacto complainant did not file any protest application before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which remedy was available to the defacto complainant as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1285 . Having missed the bus then, the defacto complainant is now attempting to reopen the case, which is not permissible. 9. The closure report was filed in 2013 and after a lapse of nearly two years, the prayer for setting aside the closure report and for ordering investigation by CBI, does not merit consideration. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any infirmity in the closure report for setting it aside and ordering further investigation. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.