Advocates:
['M/S J JANARTHANAN', '', 'PERCIVUL D PERICLES', 'M VISHNU VENKATESH', 'D SATEESH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.06.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

CRL.O.P No.26086 of 2017

and

Crl.M.P.No.15012 of 2017

Miss.E.Bhavani

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its

Sub Inspector of Police,

(Law and Order)

All Women Police Station,

Chengalpet,

Kancheepuram.

...Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, praying to direct the respondent to

reinvestigate the case and register the FIR No.7 of 2016 under

Sections 376 and 506(ii) of IPC, 1860 (as amended), read with

Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (as amended) on the file of the Respondent and file

additional final report accordingly.

For Petitioner : Mr. J.Janarthanan

For Respondent

: Mr. C.Raghavan

Government Advocate

ORDER

The petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the

respondent police to reinvestigate the case in Crime No.7 of

2016.

2. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner, an FIR

came to be registered by the respondent police for the offences

under Sections 417, 420, 312, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Investigation was taken up and the final report was filed before

the Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur and the same was taken on

file in C.C No.46 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 417,

420, 312, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the allegations

made in the complaint and the materials that were collected in

the course of investigation, clearly makes out a case under

Section 376 of IPC. This provision has not been added at the

time of the filing of the final report.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner was cheated with a false promise to marry her and

the accused person had sexual intercourse with the petitioner.

The learned counsel by bringing to the notice of this Court the

latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anuragsoni vs.

State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2019 I Madras Law Weekly

Notes, Criminal 582 submitted that the offence under Section

376 is clearly made out.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the respondent police submitted that even where the

offence under Section 376 IPC has not been added in the final

report, that does not require reinvestigation and the Court

below always has powers to alter the charges under Section 216

of Cr.P.C based on the materials available on record.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made

on either side and the materials placed on record.

7. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that

eventhough the offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC has been

made out, the respondent police has not shown the same in the

final report. This grievance can be redressed by the concerned

Court and it does not require reinvestigation. The Court always

has powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C to alter / add charges at

any time before passing of the judgement. If the Court below

finds that the materials collected by the respondent police at

the time of investigation or the evidence that comes on record

at the time of trial, makes out an offence under Section 376 of

IPC, the Court below can amend the charge by adding the offence

under Section 376 of IPC.

8. In view of the above, the relief as sought for by the

petitioner cannot be granted by this Court and it is always left

open to the Court below to take a decision regarding the

alteration / addition of charges based on the materials

available on record.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of

accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition

is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Su