BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ CRL.R.C.(MD)No.710 of 2024 and Crl.MP(MD)No.7384 of 2024 S.Nithiyananthan ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Siruganur Police Station, Trichy District, Crime No.137 of 2023.

4.Arivalagan

5.Paulraj

6.Karthikeyan

7.Shanmugavel

8.Ilavarasan

9.Vasanthakumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order of the learned 1^st Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli in S.R.No. 842 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2023, dated 23.04.2024 and allow the revision petition and order further investigation in Crime No.137 of 2023 on the file of 2^nd respondent by some other police wing.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor *****

O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr.A.ThiruvadiKumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2.

2. Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order of 1^st Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli in S.R.No.842 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2023, dated 23.04.2024, whereby 1^st Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli rejected the petition filed by petitioner under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., on the premise that a petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C can be maintained only by the Police/prosecution. Relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

“The police/prosecution alone has been vested with the power to file petition u/s.173(8) Cr.P.C.

This petition being filed by the petitioner/complainant is not permissible u/s. 173(8)

Cr.P.C.”

3. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to Section

173(8) of Cr.P.C which reads as under:

“Section 173(8) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)”.

4. It appears that Supreme Court initially in the case of Reeta Nag vs State of West Bengal, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 129, held that the Magistrate cannot suo motu direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code or direct reinvestigation into a case on account of the bar contained in Section 167(2) of the Code.

5. Thereafter, Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi vs.

Irshad Ali reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 found that the judgment in Reeta Nag's case runs counter to the earlier judgment of larger bench of three judges in the case of Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537, and held that Magistrate before whom report is filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C is empowered to direct further investigation and require the Police to submit a further or supplementary report. Relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“37. In some judgments of this Court, a view has been advanced, [amongst others in Reeta Nag v. State of W.B. [Reeta Nag v. State of W.B., (2009) 9 SCC 129 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1051] , Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand [Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 11 SCC 299 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1336. Ed. : Ram Naresh case, does No. seem to indicate that the Magistrate cannot suo motu direct further investigation : rather it seems to indicate that the Magistrate in fact can do so.] and Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Admn.) [Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Admn.), (