The court highlighted the importance of fair and proper investigation, the limitations on the power of the investigating agency to conduct fresh investigation without new facts or court permission, and the discretion of the magistrate to entertain a second protest petition under exceptional circumstances.

1. "On the death of the complainant, whether the proceedings / the prosecution initiated by him, automatically abates or the proceedings can be allowed to be continued by the representative of the complainant, provided he is found to be a fit person ?

-is the issue raised in the revision petition.

A. Under what circumstances, the Investigating Agency is competent to order / conduct fresh / de novo/ re-investigation, in respect of a case, where already a final report is filed in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. ? ;

B. Whether it is imperative for the official ordering re-investigation to give a specific finding with regard to the fate of investigation already conducted and also about the final report so filed before the Court of Magistrate?

C. Whether further investigation can be ordered a) in the absence of any new facts coming to the notice; or b) when investigation has to be carried out from a different angle, keeping in view of further materials coming to the notice; or c)when certain aspect of the matter having been omitted to be considered ?

- are the three issues canvassed in Criminal Original Petition.

2. By the impugned order dated 16.02.2013 (i.e., nearly after five years) of the Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, the case registered in D6 Anna Square Police Station Crime No.187 of 2008 under Section 34, 201, 409, 463 and 464 IPC was ordered to be transferred, to the Crime Branch CID, for the purpose of re-opening the case for further investigation. This order is sought to be quashed in Crl.O.P.No.10912 of 2013.

Brief Facts:

3. One Robert Jayakumar filed a complaint on 25.04.2008 against the petitioners / accused alleging offences under Sections 34, 201, 409, 463 and 464 of IPC. This was taken on file by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, in C.M.P.No.1512 of 2008. It was forwarded to D-6 Anna Square Police Station on 09.06.2008. Based on the complaint, the Inspector of Police of Anna Square Police Station, conducted enquiry and closed the case as mistake of fact on 19.09.2008.

3.1. On 26.12.2004, on account of Tsunami, several lakhs of people vanished and their belongings perished. In the same incident, the memorials of two legendary leaders, i.e., Arignar Anna Memorial and M.G.Ramachandran Memorial, located at Marina Beach, Chennai, also got affected. Government of Tamil Nadu initiated several relief measures to re-generate the life and limb of the people. It also took steps to restore the memorials of the national leaders. The renovation work was entrusted to petitioners 1 to 4 and it was carried out by petitioner No.5, Contractor. The allegation was that all of them colluded together and committed misappropriation of money worth Rs.4,74,130/-.

3.2. When the final report was received by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 16.10.2008, a protest petition was filed by the defacto complainant, (since deceased) on 28.01.2010. Due to the death of the complainant on 01.05.2010, the counsel made an endorsement that the petition would be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the co-brother of the defacto complainant, Thiru.Jayapal Mohan, filed a substitute application on 28.07.2011, to get himself substituted in the place of the former complainant, Robert Jayakumar. By order dated 15.09.2011, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitioners to appear before the Court and to file a counter.

3.3. As against the said order, the petitioners / accused filed Crl.R.C.No.1535 of 2011 and obtained an order of stay on 18.11.2011, which was being extended from time to time. The Joint Commissioner of Police advised D-6 police station to re-open the case and the respondent investigated the case and closed it as mistake of fact vide R.C.S. No.32 of 2012. This report was filed before the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, the second respondent, Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, issued the impugned memorandum dated 16.02.2013 fo