Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Marie Wilson – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep by Station House Officer, Lawspet Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Revision petition | Crl.MP.No.4 of 2026 in C.C.No.558 of 2022 | Crime No.134 of 2022
For Petitioners: Mr.John Satyan, Senior Counsel, Mr.G.Sivakumar
For Respondents:Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy, APP Assisted by Mr.A.Alexander, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1, Ms.Gladies Daniel for R2
Magistrate empowered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to order further investigation on new evidence; time limits permissible if prior directions exist.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the Magistrate's order under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. directing further investigation based on additional video evidence in a case involving trespass, assault, and intimidation arising from an adoption dispute. The Court found the Magistrate had power to order further investigation, relying on Supreme Court precedent, and upheld the time limit for supplementary charge sheet in line with prior directions. No patent error warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. Issues framed included locus standi of complainant and Magistrate's power to direct investigation timelines. Ratio decidendi affirmed Magistrate's authority under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. when new materials emerge, without encroaching on investigation. Criminal Revision petition stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge magistrate's further investigation order in assault case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties argue locus standi and propriety of investigation directions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. magistrate's power under 173(8) cr.p.c. upheld with new evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. revision dismissed; no interference warranted. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The petitioners has preferred the above revision challenging the judgment passed by the learned Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), at Puducherry in Crl.MP.No.4 of 2026 in C.C.No.558 of 2022 dated 27.02.2026.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the house of the second respondent, abused and assaulted her and her husband with a wooden log, causing simple injuries, and criminally intimidated them. The occurrence is stated to have arisen out of a dispute relating to the adoption and upbringing of minor child.
Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the second respondent has no locus standi to file an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. as it is for the investigating agency to decide whether further investigation is required or not. He further submitted that, in the present case, the learned Magistrate, without any basis, has ordered further investigation and has also directed the course of investigation by fixing a time limit for its completion, which is before the Power of the Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and contended that based on the availability of additional materials placed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, further investigation was rightly ordered. He further submitted that the direction issued to the investigating officer to file a supplementary charge sheet within a period of one month was in view of the earlier direction of this Court to dispose of the case within a period of six months. Therefore, the mere ordering of further investigation and issuance of such directions cannot be termed as illegal or without jurisdiction.
Hence, there is no merit in the present petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.
6. While considering the present application, it is seen that the challenge is to the direction issued by the learned Magistrate for further investigation. It was brought to the notice of the Trial Court that certain additional materials, particularly video evidence, were available which accuracy to trial Court necessitated further investigation. The learned Magistrate, taking note of the same, has observed that the video footage would provide a clearer picture regarding the involvement of the accused and would assist the prosecution effectively establish its case. The learned Magistrate has also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1, and has rightly held that the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation.
7. It is a well settled principle of law that the contours and scope of the criminal revision are limited, and in the absence of a patent defect or palpable error, the question of interference with the order of the learned Magistrate is to be avoided. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate on the basis of the availability of additional materials, has thought it fit to order further investigation, which does not suffer from any infirmity. In so far as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the direction to file a supplementary charge sheet within a period of one month amounts to interference with the investigation is concerned, this Court is unable to accept the same. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, there is a direction by this Court to dispose of the case within a p
