{"id":168521,"date":"2007-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007"},"modified":"2018-04-11T08:53:48","modified_gmt":"2018-04-11T03:23:48","slug":"chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 27\/09\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nCrl.R.C.(MD).No.669 of 2007\nCrl.R.C.(MD).Nos.670 and 680 of 2007\n\nand\n\nM.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2007\nAND\nM.P(MD)SR.Nos.18738 to 18740 of 2007\nin\nCrl.O.P(MD)No.5517 of 2007\n\n\n\nCrl.R.C.(MD).Nos.669 and 670 of 2007\n\n\nChinnaraj alias R.Padmaban\t\t... \tPetitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tboth the petitions\n\n\nVs\n\n\n1.Raveendran alias Ravi\n2.The Superintendent of Police,\n  Karur.\n3.P.Sakthivel,\n  The Inspector of Police,\n  Karur Town Police Station,\n  Karur District.\n4.The Sub Inspector of Police,\n  Crime Branch,\n  Karur Town Police Station,\n  Karur District.\n5.The Inspector of Police,\n  CBCID, Karur.\t\t\t\t... \tRespondents in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tboth the petitions<\/p>\n
Prayer<\/p>\n
Petitions filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in
\nCrl.M.P.Nos.3739 and 3740 of 2007 dated 06.08.2007 on the file of the learned
\nJudicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner \t…\tMr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel
\n\t\t\t\tfor Mr.B.Saravanan<\/p>\n
^For Respondent \t…\tMr.V.Subramanian
\n\t\t\t\tfor Mr.M.Subash Babu for R1
\n\t\t\t\tMr.Siva.Ayyappan,
\n\t\t\t\tGovt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
\n\t\t\t\tfor R2 to R5<\/p>\n
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.680 of 2007<\/p>\n
The State represented by
\nThe Inspector of Police,
\nCBCID, Karur.\t\t… \tPetitioner<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
Raveendran alias Ravi\t… \tRespondent<\/p>\n
Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in
\nCrl.M.P.Nos.3739 and 3740 of 2007 dated 06.08.2007 on the file of the learned
\nJudicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner\t\t…\tMr.Siva.Ayyappan,
\n\t\t\t\tGovt. Advocate (Crl.Side)<\/p>\n
M.P(MD)SR.Nos.18738 to 18740 of 2007
\nin
\nCrl.O.P(MD)No.5517 of 2007<\/p>\n
Chinnaraj alias R.Padmaban\t… \tPetitioner in
\n\t\t\t\t\tall the petitions<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
1.Raveendran alias Ravi\n<\/p>\n
2.The Superintendent of Police,
\n  Karur.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
\n  Crime Branch,
\n  Karur Town Police Station,
\n  Karur District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Inspector of Police,
\n  CBCID, Karur.\t\t\t… \tRespondents in
\n\t\t\t\t\tall the petitions<\/p>\n
Prayer<\/p>\n
Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to
\nimplead the petitioner as 4th respondent, to suspend the order and to recall the
\norder passed in Crl.O.P.No.5517 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner \t\t…\tMr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel
\n\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr.B.Saravanan<\/p>\n
^For Respondent \t\t…\tMr.V.Subramanian
\n\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr.M.Subash Babu for R1
\n\t\t\t\t\tMr.Siva.Ayyappan,
\n\t\t\t\t\tGovt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
\n\t\t\t\t\tfor R2 to R4<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
\tCrl.R.C.(MD)Nos.669, 670 and 680 of 2007 are focussed to call for the
\nrecords relating to the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3739 and 3740 of
\n2007 dated 06.08.2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur
\nand set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. M.P(MD)SR.Nos.18738 to 18740 of 2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5517 of 2007,
\nhave been filed to implead the petitioner as 4th respondent, to suspend the
\norder and to recall the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.5517 of 2007 dated
\n30.07.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
\nof these petitions would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe police registered the case in Cr.Nos.994 and 995 of 2005 under
\nSections 465, 468, 420 and 120(B) I.P.C and laid the police reports.  Thereupon,
\nthe defacto complainant Raveendran @ Ravi, being not satisfied with the
\ninvestigation conducted and the police reports filed before the learned
\nMagistrate, filed Crl.R.C.Nos.840 and 841 of 2005 before this Court which passed
\norder on 01.03.2007 directing further investigation by the same police.  It
\nappears, the police conducted further investigation, but the defacto complainant
\nwas not satisfied with that and hence, once again, the same defacto complainant
\nfiled Crl.O.P(MD)No.5517 of 2007.  This Court by virtue of order dated
\n30.07.2007, issued direction and the operative portion of it, is extracted
\nhereunder for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n
\t“5. Hence, in these circumstances, I would like to pass the following
\ndirection:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Magistrate shall keep the charge sheet pending with him and in
\nthe mean while, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
\norder, it is open for the petitioner to file an affidavit and a petition under
\nSection 173(8) Cr.P.C and pray for further investigation by C.B.C.I.D,
\nwhereupon, the learned Magistrate shall consider it and pass suitable orders.
\nIn the event of the learned Magistrate deciding to order further investigation,
\nhe is fully competent to order C.B.C.I.D to conduct further investigation.  ”\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Consequently, the defacto complainant filed the applications before the
\nlearned Magistrate concerned in Cr.M.P.Nos.3739 and 3740 of 2007 for further
\ninvestigation, whereupon it appears, the learned Magistrate after hearing the
\nlearned Counsel for the petitioner, passed orders as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Perused.  Petition allowed as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in
\nCrl.O.P(MD)No.5517 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007, the entire case records in
\nCr.No.994 of 2004 of Karur Town P.S is hereby ordered to be transferred to
\nCBCID, Karur for reinvestigation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“Perused.  Petition allowed as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in
\nCrl.O.P(MD)No.5517 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007, the entire case records in
\nCr.No.995 of 2004 of Karur Town P.S is hereby ordered to be transferred to
\nCBCID, Karur for reinvestigation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the method and manner in
\nwhich the defacto complainant approached the learned Magistrate Court and the
\norder passed, Crl.R.C.Nos.669 and 670 of 2007 are focussed on the main ground
\nthat the Magistrate without passing an objective order simply assumed and
\npresumed wrongly as though the High Court directed the Magistrate to order for
\nfurther investigation by C.B.C.I.D.  It has also been alleged as if before
\npassing the order dated 30.07.2007 in Crl.O.P.No.5517 of 2007 by this Court, the
\npetitioner herein was not heard.  However, this plea has been withdrawn while
\narguing the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Meanwhile, C.B.C.I.D who was in receipt of the order of the learned
\nMagistrate for further investigation, filed Crl.R.C(MD)No.680 of 2007 contending
\nthat C.B.C.I.D is over-burdened and they would not be able to conduct further
\ninvestigation.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Heard both sides in entirety.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the controversy which I could
\nunderstand from the records and from the arguments of the respective Advocates
\nconcerned is to the effect that on the one hand, the defacto complainant is
\nconstantly on his pursuit for getting investigated his case in a better manner,
\nwhereas the proposed accused is taking exception to the pick and choose policy
\non the part of the defacto complainant.  According to the learned Counsel for
\nthe petitioner, the learned Magistrate is having no jurisdiction to order
\nC.B.C.I.D to investigate into the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The learned Senior Counsel for the accused would argue that the High
\nCourt itself is having no power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to confer on the
\nMagistrate to order for further investigation by some other agency;  that the
\nlearned Magistrate is having no jurisdiction to order for further investigation
\nby some other agency and that the learned Magistrate was not justified in a
\ncryptic manner ordering C.B.C.I.D to take up further investigation without even
\nsetting out, some prima facie grounds expressing his satisfaction relating to
\nthe earlier investigation conducted by the police.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant would try
\nto torpedo the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the
\nlearned Magistrate had jurisdiction by virtue of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C read with
\nSection 173(8) Cr.P.C for ordering further investigation by C.B.C.I.D and for
\nwhich, no reason need be stated by him in very many words.  He would also
\ndevelop his argument that when the Criminal Procedure Code is silent, reasons
\ncannot be insisted to be stated by the Magistrate while ordering further
\ninvestigation or transfer of investigation and that such an order is only
\nadministrative in nature.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The learned Senior Counsel for the proposed accused would cite the
\nfollowing decisions in support of his contentions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and<\/a> another
\nreported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1280.  An excerpt from it, would run
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“16. Although the said sub-section does not, in specific terms, mention
\nabut the powers of the Court to order further investigation, the power of the
\npolice to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can be triggered into
\nmotion at the instance of the court.  When any such order is passed by a court
\nwhich has the jurisdiction to do so, it would not be a proper exercise of
\nrevisional powers to interfere therewith because the further investigation would
\nonly be for the ends of justice.  After the further investigation, the authority
\nconducting such investigation can either reach the same conclusion and reiterate
\nit or it can reach a different conclusion.  During such extended investigation,
\nthe officers can either act on the same materials or on other materials which
\nmay come to their notice.  It is for the investigating agency to exercise its
\npower when it is put back on that track.  If they come to the same conclusion,
\nit is of added advantage to the persons against whom the allegations were made,
\nand if the allegations are found false again the complainant would be in
\ntrouble.  So from any point of view the Special Judge’s direction would be of
\nadvantage for the ends of justice.  It is too premature for the High Court to
\npredict that the investigating officer would not be able to collect any further
\nmaterial at all.  That is an area which should have been left to the
\ninvestigating officer to survey and recheck”\n<\/p>\n
The Honourable Apex Court in the decision cited, at paragraph No.16, would
\nhighlight that the revisional power of the High Court should not be invoked for
\ninterfering with the order of the lower Court in directing further investigation
\nwhich would only be to meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Popular Muthiah v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J
\n(Cri) 779.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“50. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment did not bear the
\nsaid principles in mind.  It went beyond its jurisdiction in directing the
\nprosecution of the Appellant before us.  In a case of this nature, where a
\nsuperior Court exercises its inherent jurisdiction, it indisputably should
\nremind itself about the inherent danger in taking away right of an accused.  The
\nHigh Court should have been circumspect in exercising the said jurisdiction.
\nWhen a power under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure is exercised, the Court ordinarily should not interfere with the
\nstatutory power of the investigating agency.  It cannot issue directions to
\ninvestigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency.  In the
\ninstant case, not only the High Court had asked reinvestigation into the matter,
\nbut also directed examination of the witnesses who had not been cited as
\nprosecution witnesses.  It furthermore directed prosecution of the Appellant
\nwhich was unwarranted in law.”\n<\/p>\n
The cited decision is mainly based on the peculiar facts involved in that case
\nand the Honourable Apex Court took  exception to the direction of this Court in
\nthat case in relating to rope in one new accused while disposing of the appeal.
\nHere, the factual position is obviously different.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Rajesh and others v. Ramdeo and others reported in 2003 Supreme
\nCourt Cases (Cri) 1054.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:
\n\t“2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of the High Court
\nof Bombay at Nagpur Bench in criminal writ petition directing a fresh and
\nfurther investigation by an agency other than the local police, though on the
\nbasis of the FIR the local police did investigate into the matter, and in the
\nmeantime have filed charge-sheet against the accused persons.  While the
\ninvestigation was on, the complainant approached the High Court by filing a writ
\npetition.  The High Court has taken an unusual step of forming a panel and
\ndirecting them to examine the matter, and on the basis of the said panel report,
\nthe High Clourt has directed a further investigation by an agency other than the
\nlocal police to be headed by the Superintendent of Police.  Since the
\ninvestigation agency has already filed the charge sheet on the basis of which
\nthe accused persons are being proceeded against, if any further materials are
\navailable, the Court may alter the charge framed.  In the circumstances, we have
\nno hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court has overstepped its
\njurisdiction in issuing the impugned direction calling upon further
\ninvestigation into the matter, which in our considered opinion, would be an
\nabuse of process of the Court.  We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of
\nthe High Court dated 9-3-2000.  The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  Needless
\nto mention, power of the investigating agency to have any further investigation
\nexercised under Section 173(8) CrPC is not being taken away by this order.”\n<\/p>\n
The reliance placed on the aforesaid decision by the learned Senior Counsel for
\nthe proposed accused, in my opinion, is not applicable to the facts and
\ncircumstances of this case as in that case, despite charge sheet having been
\nfiled and pending before the Court having jurisdiction, the High Court
\nintervened and formed a panel to examine the matter and on the basis of the said
\npanel report, the High Court directed further investigation which the Honourable
\nApex Court looked askance at and remarked that the High Court overstepped in its
\nfunction.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Gun-Rock Enclave Co-op. Housing Socy. Ltd, v. P.Ranganayakamma
\nreported in 2005 CRL.L.J.4591.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:
\n\t“9. In the case of Hemanth Dhasmanna v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
\nAIR 2001 SC 2721 : (2001 Cri L J 4190), the Supreme Court held that on receipt
\nof a report under Section 173(2) of the Code stating that no offence is
\ncommitted by the accused, then the Court may accept and drop the proceedings or
\nthe Court may disagree with the report and take cognizance of the offence and
\nissue process if it takes the view that there is sufficient ground for
\nproceeding further or the Court may direct further investigation to be made by
\nthe police, but, the Magistrate is not empowered to direct particular police
\nofficer or even an officer of the particular rank to conduct investigation.
\nUnder Section 173(8) of the Code, the Magistrate is empowered to order further
\ninvestigation by the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station alone.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, he would develop his
\nargument to the effect that the Honourable Apex Court repeatedly held that no
\nCourt should direct further investigation or investigation by a particular
\nagency.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant cited the
\nfollowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn.<\/a> reported in AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1323.
\nAn excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“7. Since according to the respondents charge-sheet has already been
\nsubmitted to the Magistrate we direct the trial Court before whom the charge-
\nsheet has been submitted to exercise his powers under section 173(8) Cr.P.C to
\ndirect the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and thorough investigation
\nof the case.  On issue of such direction the Central Bureau of Investigation
\nwill investigate the case in an independent and objective manner and it will
\nfurther submit additional charge-sheet, if any, in accordance with law.  The
\nappeal stands disposed of accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Alliraj Gounder v. The Inspector of Police<\/a> reported in 2005 (3) CTC\n<\/p>\n
673.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“4. Moreover if the writ petitioner is not satisfied with the
\ninvestigation being done by the police, he has a remedy to approach the
\nMagistrate concerned under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C vide H.S.Bains v. State, AIR
\n1980 SC 1883, and if the said Magistrate is satisfied about the allegations of
\nthe petitioner, he can direct the police agency which he deems to be appropriate
\nto do the proper investigation into the complaint of the petitioner, and he can
\nalso monitor the police investigation.” \t\t(emphasis added)<\/p>\n
The perusal of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court would leave no
\ndoubt in the mind of the Court that even the Magistrate has got the power to
\norder further investigation by some other agency.  The learned Magistrate is
\nexpected to render criminal justice without driving the aggrieved party to seek
\nredressal before the High Court  even with regard to minor mistakes committed by
\nthe police officers.  Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the term ‘police’
\nalone is contemplated and they are governed by the Police Act, 1863 and I do not
\nlike, at this juncture, to ponder over the point if the Magistrate is having
\nright to order C.B.I under Special Police Establishment Act to conduct
\ninvestigation or further investigation, but so far the local police or C.B.C.I.D
\nof the State is concerned, the Magistrate should have the power to issue
\ndirection as otherwise litigant public would be the sufferers.   There are
\nvarious divisions in Tamil Nadu for administrative convenience, but the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure treats the police as one only and the learned Magistrate is
\nhaving the control over the police to the limited extent as per the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, even though the police is not  the tentacle of the Court for
\nall purposes.  The learned Magistrate is having the right to observe the
\nprogress of investigation in a case, though he cannot interfere with it.  To
\nfortify and buttress such a view, there are various provisions in the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure and I need not dilate on that in this context as it is
\nobvious and axiomatic.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The precedent, Surindra Nath v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006
\nCRL.L.J 2716 is relied on by the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant.
\nAn excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“10. The words “further investigation in respect of an offence after a
\nreport under sub-section (2) … the officer-in-charge of the police station”
\nused in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C does not mean further investigation by the same
\ninvestigating agency.  Further investigation by a different investigating agency
\ncannot be pre-empted on the ground of investigation already made by the earlier
\nI.O.  The law must be allowed to take its own course and injuncting such process
\nprematurely by invoking extraordinary powers conferred under section 482, Cr.P.C
\ncannot sub-serve the ends of justice and the offence as alleged are liable to be
\nfully and thoroughly investigated and that is why the enabling powers like
\ncontained in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C have been incorporated in the law.  The words
\n“further investigation” in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C are not linked with the words
\n“the officer-in-charge of the police station by the word ‘by’.  The words
\n“further investigation” are suffixed by the words “in respect of an offence”.
\nTherefore, further investigation by a different investigation agency is not
\nruled out under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.  The arguments of the learned Counsel for
\nthe  petitioners proceed on the presumption that upon further investigation the
\nthings are bound to take a U-turn against that accused petitioners only.  There
\nis no place for such presumption to accept or pre-empt the further
\ninvestigation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Leela Das v. State, C.B.I reported in 2001 CRI.L.J 2684.  An excerpt
\nfrom it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“8. The aforesaid observation clearly supports the contention of the
\nlearned Advocate for the opposite party that the order impugned is not an order
\npassed by a judicial order, and, therefore, it need not specify the precise
\nreason for the ultimate order of the learned Magistrate directing the Central
\nBureau of Investigation to further investigate the case.  That being so, I find
\nthat the order impugned cannot be set aside on the aforesaid ground.”\n<\/p>\n
As such, the aforesaid excerpts and the entire perusal of the judgment of the
\nCalcutta High Court cited supra would highlight that the order of the learned
\nMagistrate in directing further investigation cannot be faulted with on the
\nground that it is niggard of reasons found detailed in such direction.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In the wake of the decisions cited on the side of the defacto
\ncomplainant in,  (i) Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn.<\/a> reported in AIR 1988 SUPREME
\nCOURT 1323, (ii) Alliraj Gounder v. The Inspector of Police<\/a> reported in 2005 (3)
\nCTC 673, (iii) Surindra Nath v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006 CRL.L.J 2716
\nand (iv) Leela Das v. State, C.B.I reported in 2001 CRI.L.J 2684, and my
\ndiscussions infra, the aforesaid decisions cited on the side of the accused are
\nnot applicable to this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned Senior Counsel for the proposed accused would develop his
\nargument that this Court in the earlier order dated 30.07.2007, specifically
\nmandated the Magistrate to pass suitable orders and in the event of deciding to
\norder for further investigation, he could choose C.B.C.I.D as the agency, but
\nthe learned Magistrate throwing to winds the order of this Court, issued cryptic
\ndirection for further investigation by C.B.C.I.D.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The learned Counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that the
\nsaid order is only an administrative order and not a judicial order and
\nindubitably and incontrovertibly an administrative order need not be buttressed
\nby or fortified by any reason to be recorded as part of that direction.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am of the considered opinion that
\nif the protest petition is dismissed, certainly reasons should be given, but the
\nconverse is not true.  In the case of ordering further investigation by the
\nMagistrate, the accused is having no right to challenge it before higher fora,
\nbut if the prayer for further investigation is rejected, the defacto complainant
\ncould agitate it before higher forum and in such an event, law envisages reason
\nto be stated therein only.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The learned Counsel for the defacto complainant would draw the
\nattention of this Court to Section 397 Cr.P.C and argue that the accused is
\nhaving no right of audience and the revisional power of this Court cannot be
\ninvoked at all impugning the said direction issued by the learned Magistrate,
\nwhereas the learned Senior Counsel for the accused would place reliance on the
\nterms, ‘proprietary, legality and correctness’ as found envisaged under Section
\n397 Cr.P.C and argue that the High Court should have the opportunity of seeing
\nas to whether the learned Magistrate acted properly, as otherwise there will be
\nunfettered power on the part of the Magistrate to order further investigation by
\nsome other agency on flimsy and imaginary reasons which is not contemplated
\nunder the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. In my considered opinion, inasmuch as the law is settled and the legal
\nproposition is trite, to the effect that the proposed accused in a criminal
\ncase, before issuance of summons to him, has no right of audience, he cannot
\nchallenge the order of further investigation by some other agency under Section
\n397 Cr.P.C.  At that stage, no adversarial proceeding is contemplated before the
\nMagistrate.  In such a case, the accused cannot air his grievance that the
\nlearned Magistrate ordered further investigation by some other agency without
\nciting reasons.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. To the risk of repetition, without being tautologous, I would stress
\nupon the fact that the revisional powers of the High Court could not be invoked
\nas against interlocutory orders. Section 397(2) Cr.P.C has been interpreted
\nconsistently by the Honourable Apex Court that from the interlocutory orders, no
\nrevision would lie.   In my considered opinion, such order for further
\ninvestigation by C.B.C.I.D passed by the learned Magistrate is only a step-in-
\naid order in the process of finding out the truth involved in the matter, and as
\nsuch, it cannot be the subject matter of revision also.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In the result, I am of the considered opinion that the interference
\nwith the order of the learned Magistrate is not warranted.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Regarding the grievance of C.B.C.I.D is concerned, I am of the
\nconsidered view that C.B.C.I.D cannot shirk its responsibility, when the
\nlitigant public are reposing  confidence in C.B.C.I.D and demanding probe by it
\nin a complicate case of this nature .  They cannot be heard to contend that they
\nare over-burdened etc.  This case is having a chequered career of its own, as
\nrevealed by the order dated 01.03.2007 of this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.840 and 841
\nof 2005.  I am therefore of the view that C.B.C.I.D should take up the task as
\nordered by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. With the above observations, Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.669 of 2007, 670 of 2007
\nand 680 of 2007 and M.P(MD)SR.Nos.18738 to 18740 of 2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5517
\nof 2007 are disposed of.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are
\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Superintendent of Police,
\n  Karur.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
\n  Crime Branch,Karur Town Police Station,
\n  Karur District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Inspector of Police,
\n  CBCID, Karur.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27\/09\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.(MD).No.669 of 2007 Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.670 and 680 of 2007 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2007 AND M.P(MD)SR.Nos.18738 to 18740 of 2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5517 of 2007 Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.669 and 670 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-11T03:23:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T03:23:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4089,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T03:23:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-11T03:23:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T03:23:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007"},"wordCount":4089,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007","name":"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T03:23:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnaraj-alias-r-padmaban-vs-raveendran-alias-ravi-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chinnaraj Alias R.Padmaban vs Raveendran Alias Ravi on 27 September, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}