Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J
M.Pandiselvi – Appellant
Versus
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District – Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.626 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Mahendrarajan
For the Respondents:Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Judicial Magistrate lacks power to order re-investigation; further investigation is permissible under criminal procedure law.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 190(1)(b) r/w 173(8) and 156(3) - Petition for re-investigation dismissed as the judicial magistrate has no jurisdiction to order re-investigation but can order further investigation based on the existing report. The court noted that the petitioner failed to utilize available evidence such as a cellphone crucial to the investigation. (Paras 5-10)
(B) Appeal - Jurisdiction - The findings of the magistrate affirmed, noting that appropriate legal remedies like protest petitions could have been pursued instead of seeking re-investigation. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
Petition sought re-investigation of a death case classified as accidental, despite claims of foul play. Previous courts had directed the petitioner to address their grievances through correct legal channels.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the petition was valid as there was no jurisdiction for re-investigation, and adequate investigations were conducted.
Issues: The case raised issues regarding the judicial power to order re-investigation and the sufficiency of the investigation conducted.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of investigation lies with police unless specifically directed otherwise by higher courts and proper legal procedures must be adhered to.
Result: Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of magistrate regarding re-investigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on procedural compliance and limitations (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence and relevance (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.
3442 of 2022, dated 03.02.2023, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, dismissing the petition filed under Sections 190(1)
(b) r/w 173(8) and 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Narmadha, wife of M.Ganagapandi, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.12 of 2020 on 03.03.2020 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., on the file of the Railway Police Station, Rameshwaram. The respondent police, after completing the investigation, by holding that the complainant's husband's death is an accidental death, filed a final report as further action dropped. The petitioner – mother of the deceased Ganagapandi has filed the above petition under Section 190(1)(b) r/w 173(8) and 156(3) Cr.P.c., seeking re-investigation in the case registered in Cr.No.12 of 2020 alleging that his son was murdered by some persons, but the final report came to be filed as accidental death and that the re-investigation is sought for in pursuance of the orders passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10434 of 2020, dated 18.12.2021. In the said petition, the petitioner has highlighted suspicious circumstances surrounding her son's death, alleging that the investigation and the final report were improper and illegal.
3. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner in the above petition filed Cr.M.P.No.3442 of 2022, has sought for re-investigation to the case in Cr.No.12 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police. It is evident from the records that the petitioner has earlier filed petition before this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.10434 of 2020 seeking transfer of investigation and particularly to the CBCID police, Ramanathapuram and this Court, while disposing the said petition on 18.12.2021 has observed “ since further action has been dropped and a report has already been filed, the transfer of investigation at this stage may not arise and the petitioner has to work out her remedy before the concerned Court through appropriate proceedings.”
4. It is further evident that subsequent to the orders of this Court, the petitioner has moved a similar application before the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram in Cr.M.P.No.113 of 2022 seeking transfer of investigation and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, by observing that since the High Court has already rejected the transfer prayer, the petitioner can approach the concerned Court for appropriate reliefs. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the directions of the High Court as well as the Principal Sessions Court, the above petition seeking re-investigation came to be filed before the jurisdictional Court. It is pertinent to note that neither the High Court nor the Principal Sessions Court has directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for re-investigation.
5. As already pointed out, this Court, taking note of the filing of the negative final report, directed the petitioner to work out remedy before the concerned Court through appropriate proceedings. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the petitioner can file a protest petition challenging the negative final report or file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., but the petitioner instead of taking those steps has again sought for re-investigation. It is settled law that the Judicial Magistrate has no power or jurisdiction to order fresh investigation/re-investigation/denova investigation, but only order further investigation. Hence, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, the prayer for re-investigation cannot legally be sustained.
6. It is evident from the records that the learned Magistrate, though he was not
