Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3226 (MAD)

M. Murugammal v. State

2019-11-21

M.S.RAMESH

body2019
ORDER : M.S. Ramesh, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. John J. Raja Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code contemplates that when an officer incharge of the police station receives information that a person committed suicide or otherwise, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and thereafter he can proceed in the manner provided under Section 174 Cr.P.C. 3. In the instant case, the status report filed by the respondent police does not reveal that such information was given to the Executive Magistrate. The requirement under Section 174 Cr.P.C., for intimation to the Executive Magistrate by the Investigating Officer is mandatory in nature and in the absence of such intimation, the further course of inquest taken by the respondent police would be rendered as invalid. In the light of this position, the petitioner's prayer seeking for alteration of the First Information Report gains significance and requires to be considered. Nevertheless, the issue as to whether the offence could be altered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to 302 Cr.P.C. would be on the outcome of the inquest report and therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to give proper intimation to the Executive Magistrate has contemplated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, inquest could be made. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that in view of Section 174 Cr.P.C. r/w Police Standing Order 586, an appropriate person to conduct such inquest would be the officer incharge of the police station. It is further stated that pursuant to the inquest conducted by the Inspector of Police under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the further action in Crime No. 150/2019 has been dropped. 5. However, this Court is of the view that since the officer incharge had chosen to proceed under Section 174 Cr.P.C. without following the necessary procedure of prior intimation to the Executive Magistrate and also in view of the fact that Section 176 Cr.P.C. enables the Executive Magistrate to conduct further inquest, it would be appropriate for such inquest to be made by the Executive Magistrate himself. The Executive Magistrate namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tondiarpet, Chennai is suo motu impleaded as a party respondent. 6. The Executive Magistrate namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tondiarpet, Chennai is suo motu impleaded as a party respondent. 6. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tondiarpet, Chennai to conduct an inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in connection with the death of M. Shanmugasundaram, aged about 25 years in accordance with the provisions under Sections 174 and 176 Cr.P.C. and file a report as expeditiously as possible. 7. The Criminal Original Petition stands ordered, accordingly.