M.MANI Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2012 passed in Crl. MP No. 3602 of 212 dismissing the petition filed by him under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, he is working as an Assistant in Thiru. Kandambapathy Thiru Madam situated in Gingee and he is assisting the said Mutt for the past 20 years. On 10.12.2009, ten unknown persons trespassed into the Mutt with deadly weapons, assaulted the petitioner and the Madathipathi and also caused theft of 54 sovereigns of gold jewels, 7 grams of silver, two cell phones, 6 bangles and two platinum rings having a total value of Rs. 1,16,000/- and they have also taken the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 32 K 6386. In this context, the petitioner gave a complaint and based on the same, a case in Crime No. 147 of 2009 was registered by the Sathiyamangalam Police Station for the offences under Section 457,380 and 395 @ 397 of IPC. After investigation, a final report was filed and it was taken on file in PRC No. 4 of 2012 on 2.3.2012. According to the petitioner, the investigation carried on by the investigation officer is not proper and therefore, he approached this Court by filing Crl. OP No. 21269 of 2010 seeking to transfer the case to an independent investigation agency for investigation. This Court, by order dated 22.2.2011 directed the Inspector of Police, Valathi Police Station to complete the investigation within two months and also directed the Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, Villupuram to monitor the investigation. According to the petitioner, the direction issued by this Court has not been complied with and the investigation officer has not impleaded certain persons as accused in the case inspite of recovery of the theft items from them. Therefore, the petitioner has filed C.M.P. No. 3602 of 2012 before the Court below under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of investigation to the special investigation agency namely C.B.C.I.D. for re-investigation and to file a final report.

(2.) The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for re-investigation only on the ground that the special investigation agency like C.B.C.I.D. can be directed to conduct investigation only in cases of public importance and serious case and therefore, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kashmiri Devi v. Delhi Administration, 1988 AIR(SC) 1323 to contend that the Court below has committed a manifest error in refusing to direct the special investigating agency to investigate the case.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that the investigation carried out by the investigating officer is just and proper and it is in accordance with law. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal, 2009 9 SCC 129 to contend that once charge sheet is filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is not competent to order for re-investigation either suo motu or on the basis of an application by the de facto complainant. Such re-investigation can be ordered only on the request of the investigation officer based on further material collected during the course of investigation. This decision of the Honourable Supreme Court was also followed by this Court in the latest judgment in A. Mohan and Others v. State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Colleroon Police Station, Tricky and Another , wherein this Court has categorically held that the de facto complainant has no power to seek for further investigation. Similar view was taken by this Court in Muthukrishnan v. State of Tamilnadu,2012 1 MadLJ(Cri) 50, wherein it is clearly stated that Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does not contemplate nor empower a Magistrate to order further investigation on the request of the de facto complainant. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the order passed by the Court below is proper and interference of this Court is not warranted.