The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate should consider the grievances expressed in a protest petition and order further investigation based on the materials presented. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the duties and responsibilities of the driver and the police officer in case of an accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. My heroes are those who risk their lives every day to protect our world and make it a better place police, firefighters and members of our armed forces so said Sidney Sheldon, appreciating the work of the Police.

When duties and responsibilities of the respondent are expected to be like that, what is the conduct of the respondent herein?

2. Leaving his eight months pregnant wife, the husband Sathiyaraj, S/o. Pitchai Muthu, died in an accident. Alleging that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Kandharva Kottai Police Station filed the final report before the Magistrate. Holding that the final report has been filed after proper investigation, the learned Magistrate has chosen to reject the objection petition. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. The deceased was a Carpenter by profession. The deceased Sathiyaraj, belonging to Minnadurai, met with an accident, while he was returning from old Kandharva Kottai to Kandharva Kottai in order to take lunch, while driving his vehicle with the registration No. TN-45 AB 8341, Hero Honda Passion Pro. The accident had taken place, while there was a clash of this two wheeler with the Police Jeep TN-55 G-0428. This accident took place on 30.05.2013 at about 01:30 p.m. He was taken to the hospital, where he died at about 8:00 p.m.

4. In respect of this accident, one Natarajan has preferred a complaint and his complaint has been registered in Crime No. 101 of 2013 of Kandharva Police Station under Section 304-A IPC, by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police Muthukaruppan. Later on, investigation has been continued by the Inspector of Police and he closed the investigation with a finding that the complaint of causing death by rash and negligent driving is contrary to truth and it is a mistake of fact. In the final report, it has been stated that the deceased invited the accident as he was in a state of intoxication and that this fact is medically evident.

5. The defacto complainant filed a protest petition before the Magistrate, alleging that there are witnesses to prove the complaint made and the defacto complainant has strong objection to close the complaint on the ground of mistake of fact. Learned Magistrate rejected the protest petition by the order dated 11.11.2014 and this order is under challenge in this revision petition.

6. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate Criminal M.P. No. 9213 of 2014 reveals that the dismissal was with the following observation:-

(i) There are materials in the form of the statement of three eye witnesses wherein the witnesses have stated that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving.

(ii) The deceased had driven the vehicle without driving licence.

(iii) The deceased had been in intoxicating state.

7. From the stated circumstances, as disclosed from the final report, the learned Magistrate held that the final report has been filed on proper investigation and rejected the protest petition.

8. What is the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate, when a protest petition is filed with regard to the closure of the investigation. Whether the Magistrate is empowered to reject the protest petition just because the Court is of the opinion that the investigation has been done on proper lines without looking into the grounds stated in the protest petition. These are the issued canvassed in this revision petition.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the learned Magistrate ought to have treated the protest petition as a complaint and should have permitted the protestant to pursue the complaint by adducing evidence.

10. It is pointed out that when a private complaint is filed. Under Section 200 Cr. P.C. it had been returned on the ground that already protest petition has been dismissed and therefore, the private complaint is not maintainable.

11. The dismissal order is under challenge on