Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2250 (MAD)

P. Chinnaramar v. Ramasamy

2025-04-23

K.MURALI SHANKAR

body2025
ORDER : K.Murali Shankar, J. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.919 of 2024 in C.C.No.624 of 2023 dated 07.02.2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti, in dismissing the petition filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was engaged in construction work in the land owned by him on 27.09.2022, that the respondents 1 to 3, due to the previous enmity, came to the construction site, abused the petitioner in filthy language, assaulted him and also caused criminal intimidation and that the petitioner sustained injuries and hence, he was treated at Kovilpatti Government Hospital. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.549 of 2022 on 27.09.2022 against the respondents 1 to 3 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) IPC. The fourth respondent police, after completing the investigation, has filed the charge sheet against the first respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) IPC and thereby deleted the respondents 2 and 3. The learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the charge sheet and the deletion report, has taken the same on file in Crl.M.P.No.3906 of 2023 and ordered issuance of summons to the petitioner calling his objections for the deletion of the respondents 2 and 3. Though the petitioner, in pursuance of the summons received, has entered into appearance and since he has not filed any objections, the learned Magistrate has taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.624 of 2023 on 22.09.2023. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the above petition seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No. 919 of 2024 and the learned Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 dismissing the said petition. Challenging the dismissal of the petition for further investigation, the present revision came to be filed. 4. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the above petition seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No. 919 of 2024 and the learned Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 dismissing the said petition. Challenging the dismissal of the petition for further investigation, the present revision came to be filed. 4. The petitioner's case, in the petition filed for further investigation, is that the petitioner, after receipt of summons from the concerned Magistrate Court, entered into appearance directly on 09.06.2023 and sought time for filing his objections, that though the petitioner requested his counsel to get the copies of the report, he has not chosen to get the copies, that since the petitioner was absent on 26.08.2023 and 22.09.2023, the learned Magistrate, by observing that there was no representation, has taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.624 of 2023, that the petitioner, after getting copies of the records through another counsel, came to know about the above proceedings, that non-filing of objections to the deletion of the respondents 2 and 3 is not wanton, that the fourth respondent police has not served any notice with regard to the deletion of the respondents 2 and 3 before filing the charge sheet, that the petitioner in his complaint has specifically mentioned about the overt act committed by the respondents 2 and 3 but it is not known as to on what ground they were deleted by the investigating officer, that though there were several persons including the JCB driver available at the occurrence place, they were not examined by the fourth respondent police and that it has become just and necessary to conduct detailed investigation and for filing of report. 5. It is evident from the records that the learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the charge sheet wherein the respondents 2 and 3, who were shown as accused in the FIR, came to be deleted, has taken the same on file in Crl.M.P.No.3906 of 2023 and ordered issuance of summons to the petitioner calling his objections for the deletion of the respondents 2 and 3. Even according to the petitioner, after receipt of summons, he entered into appearance on 09.06.2023 and sought time for filing his objections and the case was posted to 14.07.2023 and on that day also, the petitioner has appeared in person and requested further time for filing his objections and thereafter the case was adjourned to 05.08.2023. It is further evident that since 05.08.2023 was declared as holiday, the case was adjourned to 26.08.2023 and that since the petitioner was absent on 26.08.2023, the case was adjourned to 22.09.2023 and on 22.09.2023 also, since there was no representation for the petitioner and the petitioner was also called absent, the learned Magistrate, by observing that despite sufficient opportunities, the petitioner has failed to file protest petition and as such, the petitioner appeared to have no interest to proceed further, decided to take cognizance of the case. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent police has not served any notice with regard to the deletion of the respondents 2 and 3 before filing the charge sheet and that though the petitioner requested his counsel to get the copies of the reports, he has not furnished the same. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), even assuming that the fourth respondent police has failed to serve notice on the petitioner before filing the charge sheet with regard to the deletion of some of the accused, the learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the charge sheet, has issued summons to the petitioner and after receipt of the same, he has appeared in person twice and sought time for filing his objections. 7. In the revision grounds, the petitioner has also taken a stand that his counsel did not appear before the learned Magistrate on 26.08.2023 and 22.09.2023. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), since the petitioner has not turned up for two hearings nor was there any representation for him before the concerned Court, the Court cannot be found fault with for proceeding with the case. 8. It is not the case of the petitioner that he sought for the copies of the reports from the concerned Court but the same was rejected. Even according to the petitioner, he made a requisition to his counsel on record but he has not furnished the copies. 9. 8. It is not the case of the petitioner that he sought for the copies of the reports from the concerned Court but the same was rejected. Even according to the petitioner, he made a requisition to his counsel on record but he has not furnished the copies. 9. The main reason canvassed for further investigation is that the learned Magistrate, without giving sufficient opportunity for filing objections to the deletion of the respondents 2 and 3, has proceeded to take cognizance of the case. As already pointed out, despite sufficient opportunities, the petitioner has not utilized the same for filing his objections and moreover, the above reason, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as a ground for further investigation. 10. The next reason is that though there were several persons at the occurrence place including the JCB driver, they were not at all examined by the investigating officer. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that even in the complaint, the petitioner has not stated that so many persons were present in the occurrence place nor he furnished the names of the alleged occurrence witnesses. 11. Regarding the deletion of the accused, Section 358 B.N.S.S. (319 Cr.P.C.) empowers the Court to initiate proceedings against any persons including those not initially named as accused or those initially named in the FIR but not charge sheeted, if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offence for which they should be tried together with the existing accused. The power under Section 358 B.N.S.S. (319 Cr.P.C.) allows the Court to ensure that all those involved in the alleged occurrence are tried together even if they were not initially named. Though the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case as against the first respondent alone, if the evidence adduced at the trial reveals the involvement of the other persons, they can certainly be added as accused invoking Section 358 B.N.S.S. (319 Cr.P.C.). 12. In the present case, as already pointed out, the petitioner has not shown any valid reason or ground for seeking further investigation and the reasons alleged are not sufficient enough to order for further investigation. 13. Considering the above, the impugned order dismissing the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. cannot be found fault with. 12. In the present case, as already pointed out, the petitioner has not shown any valid reason or ground for seeking further investigation and the reasons alleged are not sufficient enough to order for further investigation. 13. Considering the above, the impugned order dismissing the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. cannot be found fault with. Consequently, this Court concludes that the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. No costs.