JUDGMENT (Prayer: Crl.O.P.No.5502 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the second respondent to re-investigate the FIR in Crime No.92 of 2018 registered by the first respondent by setting aside the cognizance of C.C.No.201 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu. Crl.O.P.No.5504 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the proceeding in C.C.No.32 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.) Common Order: 1. These two Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by one Jothi, S/o.Pulenthiran. 2. C.C.No.32 of 2018 is the subject matter of Crl.O.P.No.5504 of 2019 and C.C.No.201 of 2018 is the subject matter of Crl.O.P.No.5502 of 2019. Both arises out of the same transaction namely, dispute between the family members while plucking mangoes in a tree near the shop of the petitioner herein. The FIR in Crime No.92 of 2018 came to be registered on 27.04.2018 based on the complaint given by Jothi/petitioner herein against Velu, S/o.Balu, Thachinamoorthy and his wife Mythili alleging that on 24.04.2018 at about 16:00 Hours, in the course of the verbal duel, Velu, S/o.Balu, attacked him with iron rod causing head injury and others attacked him with hands and abused him. The complaint was received on 27.04.2018 at 01:00 pm, and registered as C.S.R.No.130 of 2018 and after three days, the FIR has been registered against the three named persons for the offences under Sections 294B, 324, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. As far as Crl.O.P.No.5502 of 2019 is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer, who has investigated the case and filed the final report, has dropped the name of the prime accused Velu, who caused the head injury, for no valid reason and therefore, seeks for re-investigation of case. 4. Regarding the very same incident, one Thachinamoorthy has given the complaint against Jothi/petitioner herein, Thasarathan, Nandhakumar, Ezhilarasi and Kalaiyarasi alleging that on 24.04.2018 at about 06:15 pm, there was verdict quarrel in connection with plucking mangoes and at that time, Mythili was attacked by Jothi/petitioner herein, his wife Kalaiyarasi, Thasarathan/another brother of the complainant, Thachinamoorthy, Nandhakumar and Ezhilarasi, wife of Nandhakumar. This complaint came to be lodged on 30th April, that is 6 days after occurrence and got registered in Crime No.96 of 2018. 5. The Investigating Officer, who has investigated the said complaint, in Crime No.96 of 2018, has dropped the name of Ezhilarasi, Kalaiyarasi from the list of accused and filed the final report against other three persons namely Jothi, Nandhakumar and Thasarathan. The trial Court had taken cognizance of the offences and has been taken on file as C.C.No.32 of 2018. 6. The petition in Crl.O.P.No.5504 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2018 on the ground that the belated FIR was received by the Investigating Officer just to counter blast his complaint and the final report has been filed contrary to the facts. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that when the complaint indicates named accused and the Investigating Officer, while filing the final report, is of the opinion that one or more of the named accused are not involved in the crime, the same has to be intimated by way of a notice to the de facto complainant, for exercising his right to file the protest petition and take recourse under law. As far as Crime No.92 of 2018 is concerned, the specific overt act has been attributed against Velu, who has caused injury on the de facto complainant/Jothi, but his name has been dropped while filing final report, which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.201 of 2018 and hence re-investigation is warranted. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that there was dispute between the brothers regarding the collection of mangoes in the tree near their residence and a wordy quarrel between family members turned out into criminal assault. The Investigating Officer after due and proper investigation has taken up the complaints given by both sides and has fairly investigated the matters and filed the final report and therefore the petition for reinvestigation is baseless. 9. This Court gave anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the records. When complaint is against the specific person with overt act, if the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that no evidence is available, the said person cannot be arrayed as the accused, it is his wisdom and discretion to file the final report accordingly. 9. This Court gave anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the records. When complaint is against the specific person with overt act, if the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that no evidence is available, the said person cannot be arrayed as the accused, it is his wisdom and discretion to file the final report accordingly. However, the de facto complainant, who has set criminal law into motion, should be made known about the said action dropped against any of the named accused. So that the de facto complainant may exercise his right to file a protest petition and seek for further investigation. 10. Precisely, in Bhagwat Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and another reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt about the right of the de facto complainant in filing petition for further investigation and the same has been followed by this Court in P.Ravindranath Vs. K.Chandragandhi and others reported in CDJ 2015 MHC 6038. 11. Therefore, on the face of the records, it appears that the Investigating Officer, who had filed the final report in this case, which has been taken cognizance by the Court below as C.C.No.201 of 2018 as well as C.C.No.32 of 2018, had dropped few accused names in the complaint but had not served notice to the de facto complainant about the dropping of action. Legally speaking, for the said purpose, the final report is liable to be interfered, either ordering further investigation, or quashing the proceedings. This Court, on an earlier occasion while dealing the case of Madasamy Devar Vs. State and another reported in 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 207, had quashed the complaint where the final report carried the infirmity identical to the case on hand. Since the matter is between the family members and 4 years have lapse, in the interest of justice, this Court exercise the second option namely quashing both the complaints leading to filing of truncated final report without notice to the de facto complainant regarding action dropped against few named accused and taking cognizance by the CC.Nos.32 and 201 of 2018. 12. As a result, both these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of. Accordingly, the C.C.Nos.32 and 201 of 2018 are quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.