The judgment establishes the principle that the right of the police for further investigation exists under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., and there is a distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation. It also emphasizes that factual aspects should be decided in trial proceedings.

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records in C.C.No.246 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Dharapuram and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.4.2003 at 1.00 A.M., the petitioner was driving an ambassador car bearing registration No. TDC 5686 from east to west on Dharapuram-Ottanchatram road and when the car was nearing Karuvelampallam, the petitioner drove the car negligently and dashed against the right side neem tree. Due to the accident, one Jaichandran, who was travelling in the car sustained grievous injuries in his head, face, lip and succumbed to injuries on 25.2.2005 at 11.00 A.M. Therefore, the petitioner is punishable under Section 304(A) I.P.C.

3. According to the petitioner, on 8.4.2003, the defacto complainant, petitioner and his friends were travelling in the car bearing registration No. TDC 5688 and the same dashed against the tree. Due to the accident, defacto complainant and his friends sustained injuries. On the basis of the complaint given by Selvam @ Babu, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.143 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 (2 counts) IPC. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in S.T.C. No. 640 of 2004, wherein the petitioner had filed guilty memo and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. By an order dated 29.12.2004, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC; Rs. 700/- for the offence under Section 337 IPC and Rs. 700/- each for the offence under Section 338 (2 counts) and the petitioner paid the fine amount on the same date.

4. According to the petitioner, after two years of the accident, he received summons from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 alter into 304(A) IPC in C.C.No.246 of 2005. On verification, the petitioner found that injured Jaichandran expired on 25.2.2005 and hence, the respondent altered the offence into Section 304(A) IPC. Since the petitioner was already convicted and paid fine amount, he cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence and prayed for quashing of C.C.No.246 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

5. I heard Mr. B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking cognizance of an offence under Section 304(A) IPC against the petitioner is against law and weight of evidence and all probabilities of case. He would submit that before filing the 2nd final report, the respondent ought to have obtained permission from the competent Court for further investigation as contemplated under Section 178(3) Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel none of the witnesses did not speak about the cause of death of the deceased.

7. The learned counsel next contended that the alleged accident took place on 8.4.2003 and the second final report was filed stating that the deceased was died on 25.2.2005 and hence, it is highly doubtful that whether the deceased died out of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He contended that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in S.T.C.No.640 of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram on 29.12.2004 and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The learned counsel then contended that continuing the proceedings based upon the 2nd final report is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence, prayed for quashing of C.C.No.246 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 8.4.2003, the r