Ratios:
a. Before accepting a final report, where some of the accused whose names find a place in the FIR have been omitted, the Magistrate must issue notice to the de facto complainant.
b. Absence of notice to the defacto complainant before accepting the final report when some of the accused who was named in the FIR is omitted in the final report, vitiates the order of acceptance.

Memorandum of Grounds of Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to set aside the order dated 28.08.2009 made in Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2008 in S.C.No.103 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.I, Tindivanam, Villupuram District and further appoint the fair and impartial Police Officer to further investigate the case in Cr.No.164 of 2006 of Rosanai Police Station, Villupuram District under Section 178(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Cr.No.164 of 2006 on the file of Rosanai Police Station, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. On 09.05.2006 at about 2.00 a.m. the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent police and gave a written complaint in respect of the alleged occurrence involving the death of one Muruganandam. In the said complaint, it was, inter alia, alleged that on 08.05.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. while he was at his house at Mottaiyan Street, Tindivanam along with the deceased Muruganandam and few others, one N.R.RAghu, N.M.Karunanidhi and 15 others came to his house in two cars, all armed with deadly weapons, like Veecharival, Soda Bottles, etc., and attempted to do away with the petitioner. It was further alleged in the complaint that at that time, when Mr.Muruganandam, the brother-in-law of the brother of the petitioner, who was present, intervened to save the petitioner, the assailants attacked him with weapons. As a result, he died instantaneously. On the basis of the said complaint, the Head Constable, who was in charge of Rosanai Police Station registered the above case in Cr.NO.164 of 2006 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 506(i), 324, 323 , 120(B) and 427 of IPC against seven named accused and fifteen unnamed accused.

2. The case was initially investigated by one Mr.Sekar, the then Inspector of Rosanai Police Station. Thereafter, on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, the investigation was taken up by one Mr.V.Balasubramaniam, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi Sub Division. On his transfer, it was taken by Mr.K.Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub Division.

3. On completing the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I. Tindivanam against 15 accused. Except, A1 – N.R.Raghu, all other accused, who figure in the final report, do not find a place in the FIR. Out of total number of 7 accused named in the FIR, except A1 – N.R.Raghu, the names of the other 6 accused do not find a place in the final report. Admittedly, before accepting the final report as against the 15 accused against whom the same had been filed, the learned Magistrate did not issue any notice as required under law to the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant. The petitioner claims that he was not aware of the submission of final report and its acceptance by the learned Magistrate then. Further, the case was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions and it ultimately came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam in S.C.No.103 of 2008 for trial. This court is informed by the learned Public Prosecutor that charges have already been framed against the accused by the trial Court.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court on 25.04.2008 under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") requesting the Court to order for further investigation. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner had raised as many as 13 grounds finding fault with the investigation done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. His main grievance is that six named accused in the FIR have been wantonly omitted in the final report without doing proper investigation and by manipulating statements. Among other grounds, it was primar