MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, dated 03.01.2011 in Crime No.255 of 2008 on the file of the respondent and set aside the same and consequently, allow the revision. Heard both sides.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Head Surveyor in Karaikudi Taluk. He along with five other officials was charged in Crime No.255 of 2008 under Sections 120(b),406,468,477 IPC. THE respondent police took up the case for investigation on 13.03.2010 and filed a final report stating that 'action dropped'. He has assigned the reasons for dropping the action stating that that issue register was not written and that certain approval plans were not available in spite of contacting the municipality concerned and hence, there is no use in proceeding with the investigation. When the matter was placed before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, he directed further investigation in the case observing that the report was received from the handwriting expert, that the investigating officer has not applied his mind properly, that the alleged beneficiaries who corrected the records were not examined, that mere reasons that records were not given to the investigating officer cannot be accepted and that he has to proceed according to law and seize the relevant records for necessary investigation. This is the order challenged before this Court in revision.

(3.) PARALLEL action was initiated against the petitioner under disciplinary proceedings in which as much as four charges were framed against this petitioner. Findings of the enquiry officer is produced for perusal of this Court which shows that towards all the first three charges which pertain to issuance of pattas and corrections in the regular records, he has been absolved of the charges. Insofar as the fourth charge is concerned, it is to the effect that he has acted in such a way enabling the police to take criminal action. Even though all the material charges found to be not proved against the petitioner, the last charge alone was found to be proved, since the present criminal complaint is pending.