R RAMAMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Could the Magistrate permit the police to reopen the case for further investigation, once the said Magistrate passed an order earlier on the report filed by the police as "recorded and undetected" ? This is the question posed before this Court for consideration.

(2.) The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 3/90 registered for the offences under Sections 380 and 406 read with Section 120 (B) I.P.C. One Vairaprakasam, the petitioner in Crl. M. P. No. 3523/96 requesting for impleading himself as one of the parties, gave a complaint of theft on 12-2-90 to the Inspector General of Police (Crime), Madras.

(3.) Mr. Packiaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is well settled that once the learned Magistrate has accepted the report of the Police Officer by the order dated 8-1-93 and endorsed as "Recorded as undetected', the said order is a final judicial order and the learned Magistrate cannot thereafter pass any further order in relation to Crime No. 3/90, unless the final order passed earlier by the Magistrate has been set aside by the appellate Court. To put differently, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the memorandum dated 21-4-95 seeking the permission for reopening the case for further investigation is not maintainable, as the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, since he already became functus officio after accepting the final report as early as in January, 1993.