G SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No. 383 of 2007, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case questioning the correctness of the order dated 03.6.2015 passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P. No.2665 of 2015, by which the Petition filed by the respondent under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission for reinvestigation was allowed.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner, the defacto complainant, namely, Dinesh with the malafide intention suppressed several facts and gave a third complaint in Cr.No.11 of 2012 before the respondent, who, in turn, without any enquiry registered the case against the petitioner and arrested him and now he is enlarged on bail. According to him, for the very same allegation, the said Dinesh made a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Hudco Police and the same was taken on file vide Crime No.383 of 2007. After investigation, the same was closed as civil in nature by filing final report in No.23 of 2007 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur. Thereafter, again in the year 2011, the petitioner was called for enquiry by the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Magistrate has no power to order for reinvestigation. According to the learned counsel, as per Section 173 (8), the Magistrate can only order for further investigation and reinvestigation is different from further investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not heard before passing such an order. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the matter is purely civil in nature and the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the property and as per the ex parte decree in the Suit for Specific Performance in O.S.No.57 of 2007, he deposited the sale consideration in Court, viz., the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. Above all these things, as earlier complaint has been closed as civil in nature, the present petition seeking for reinvestigation is not maintainable. Therefore, the order of the Court below in allowing the petition for reinvestigation is not correct.