BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 09/12/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition (MD) No.12053 of 2009 M.K.Ramalingam .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arupukkottai, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Arupukkottai Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents Prayer Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to conduct further investigation in Crime No.730 of 2007, dated 13.9.2007, on the file of the Arupukottai Town Police Station. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Marimuthu ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Government Advocate (R1 to R3) :ORDER
This petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the
respondents to conduct further investigation, in Crime No.730 of 2007, dated
13.9.2007.
2. The petitioner has stated that he is in possession and enjoyment of the
shops with numbers 195F and 195G in the properties situated opposite to Maharani
Theatre, Madurai Road, Aruppukottai. While so, on 18.8.2007, one Sivasankaran
and his associates had attempted to demolish the shops. When the petitioner was
trying to stop the demolition, 50 sovereigns of gold and 10 lakhs in cash had
been stolen by the said Sivasankaran. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner had
lodged a complaint before the third respondent police to take necessary action
against the accused. Due to the inaction of the third respondent, the petitioner
had preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Arupukottai, under
Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. On 13.9.2007, the third respondent had registered a First Information
Report, in Crime No.730 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 427, 294(b), 506(ii)
and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Even though it was clearly stated in the First
Information Report that Sivasankaran and his associates were responsible for the
occurrence, the third respondent had not investigated the matter, properly.
However, a charge sheet had been taken on file, in C.C.No.221 of 2008, on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai. Since the third respondent
had not investigated the case, properly, the petitioner had preferred a
petition, under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking further
investigation. However, by an order, dated 31.7.2009, the Judicial Magistrate,
Aruppukottai, had dismissed the application filed under Section 173(8) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a revision
petition before this Court, in Crl.R.C.No.343 of 2009. However, by an order,
dated 20.8.2009, this Court had rejected the request of the petitioner. In such
circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before
this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had
submitted that the petitioner had filed a petition before the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai, under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code,
and the said petition had been dismissed, on merits, on 31.7.2009. Thereafter,
the petitioner had preferred a criminal revision petition before this Court, in
Crl.R.C.No.343 of 2009, wherein, this Court by an order, dated 20.8.2009, had
rejected the request of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the present writ
petition, filed by the petitioner, praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the
respondents to conduct further investigation, in Crime No.730 of 2007, cannot be
granted by this Court.
5. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as
the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is
clear that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the
reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner had
filed a petition for further investigation, before the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Aruppukottai, under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code, and the
said petition had been dismissed, on merits, on 31.7.2009. Thereafter, the
petitioner had preferred a criminal revision petition, before this Court, in
Crl.R.C.No.343 of 2009 and this Court, by an order, dated 20.8.2009, had
rejected the request of the petitioner and the said order had become final.
While so, it is not open to the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition,
praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct further
investigation, in Crime No.730 of 2007. In such view of the matter, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
csh
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arupukkottai, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of POlice,
Arupukkottai Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.