SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
M.Arunachalam – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18844, 17211 and 18738 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, Mr.R.Karunanidhi, Mr.Henri Tiphagne

Court emphasized limits on judicial authority to direct further investigations post-conviction to protect prosecutorial integrity in criminal justice.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 201, 304(ii), and 343 - Criminal procedure - Powers of Court - Directions for further investigation issued post-judgment may contravene established principles of law - Prior decisions establish that inherent powers do not extend to ordering further investigation post-conviction without sufficient grounds - Court observed that such actions endanger the integrity of the criminal justice process. (Paras 10, 12, 15)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 173(8), and 319 - Court's authority to direct investigation - Necessity for judicial checks maintains balance in justice delivery - Concerns around prejudice to prosecution when witnesses are made accused post-conviction. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
Several criminal original petitions arose from directions issued during the judgment in S.C.No.289 of 2021 for further investigations into officers' conduct that resulted in criminal charges against them, raising concerns over legal authority and implications for due process.

Findings of Court:
Directions for further reports against police officials expunged, reaffirming limitation on judicial discretion post-trial.

Issues: Core issues involve the limits of judicial authority to direct investigations post-judgment and implications for prosecutorial integrity when key witnesses are implicated.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that further orders should stem from existing evidence before a trial concludes, thus ensuring fairness in the criminal process.

Result: Directions from the trial Court set aside.

Table of Content
1. petitions filed to challenge directions issued by trial judge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding judicial authority and implications of further investigations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's observation on the limits of authority and reasoning behind setting aside directions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. final ruling on petitions and clarification of judicial discretion. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

COMMON ORDER

The above petitions have been filed seeking to setaside/expunge certain directions issued by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C.No.289 of 2021 after convicting the accused therein for the major offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC.

2. (i) Crl.OP.(MD).No.17211 of 2025 has been filed by the State, challenging the directions issued to conduct further investigation as against a few witnesses and to file a final report.

(ii) Crl.OP.(MD).No.18738 of 2025 has been filed by PW87 who was the investigating officer against whom, the learned Judge has directed disciplinary action.

(ii) Crl.OP.(MD).No.18844 of 2025 has been filed by PW82, in respect of whom, there is a direction issued to the Director General of Police to suspend him till the conclusion of the further investigation directed by the Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are as follows:

(i) On 03.01.2019, a complaint was lodged by one Kalyanasundaram, alleging theft of 23½ sovereigns of gold jewels from his house.

(ii) On 14.01.2019, an FIR was registered in Cr.No.9 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC.

(iii) On 07.01.2019, the suspected accused Muthu Karthick appeared for enquiry.

(iv) On 13.01.2019, the said Muthu Karthick was taken to custody from his work place.

(v) On 16.01.2019, the suspected accused Muthu Karthick called PW1, his mother through a mobile phone and informed that he is in SS Colony Police Station, Madurai.

(vi) It is alleged that the said Muthu Karthick was in illegal custody from 13.01.2019 to 16.01.2019 and on 16.01.2019, an FIR was registered in Cr.No.24 of 2019 for the offence under Section 387 and 506(ii) of the IPC by PW61, Sub Inspector of Police.

(vii) On 16.01.2019, Muthu Karthick was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JM-III, Madurai) and was granted bail. On 16.01.2019 at about 10.25pm, since the health of the said Muthu Karthick deteriorated, he was admitted in a private hospital.

(viii) On 18.01.2019, he was diagnosed with kidney failure and shifted to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and on 24.01.2019, the said Muthu Karthick, died.

(ix) Based on the complaint given by PW1, mother of the deceased Muthu Karthick, a CSR bearing No.53 of 2019 was assigned by PW80 and on the request of PW1 not to conduct postmortem, the body of the deceased was handed over without postmortem and was cremated at Puliyangulam.

(x) A writ petition was filed by PW1 in WP (MD).No.5143 of 2019, to transfer the investigation to CBCID. On the orders of this Court dated 08.03.2019, the body was exhumed and further, on the directions of this Court, a case in Cr.No.189 of 2019 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., was registered by PW82, the then Inspector of Police (Law & Order), SS Colony Police Station (petitioner in Crl.OP.(MD) No.18844 of 2025).

(xi) The case was transferred to CBCID by the order dated 26.03.2019 and on 26.04.2019, the PW87, the Superintendent of Police, South Zone-Chennai, CBCID, Chennai [petitioner in Crl.OP.No.18738 of 2025], re-registered the case in Cr.No.2 of 2019. On 18.11.2020, a charge sheet was filed against four accused for offences under Sections 304(ii) and 343 of the IPC.

(xii) The prosecution examined 89 witnesses viz., PW1 to PW89 and marked 183 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P183, besides 9 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.9. On the side of defence 12 witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW12.

(xiii) The learned Judge convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and finding that there was a lapse in the investigation and some of the pol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top