CRL OP(MD)/22864/2026 of Chellachamy Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. on 7 October 2026

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by accused Nos.10, 11,12 and 14 to 17 in Spl.S.C.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai wherein the trial Judge, on protest petition being filed, has chosen to issue summon to the nine deleted accused.

2. It could be seen from the records that the petitioners herein were initially arrayed as accused persons in Crime No.86 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police. At the time of filing of the final report, the investigating agency has chosen to delete the name of the accused persons on the ground that they are not involved in the occurrence. Challenging the same, the defacto complainant had filed Crl.M.P.No.336 of 2025. The learned trial Judge after going through the CCTV footages annexed to the final report, had proceeded to disagree with the conclusion reached by the investigating agency and had issued summons to the deleted accused persons. This order is put to challenge in the present petition.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, four witnesses who are shown as list witnesses have categorically stated that the petitioners are not at all involved in the said case. The Court ought not to have discredited their evidence without subjecting them to cross examination. The trial Court could add the accused persons under Section 319 of Cr.P.C only after evidence is recorded. When the final report categorically states that the petitioners are not involved in the said incident, the trial Court ought not to have implicated the accused persons and issued summons.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further contended that the petitioners were not put on notice before being implicated. The investigating agency have chosen to delete the name of the petitioners herein on the basis of 161 Cr.P.C statement of various witnesses. The Court could not have conducted a test identification by way of CCTV footage which is not permissible in law. It is not known how the petitioners herein were identified as accused persons by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court in the protest petition wherein the petitioners have been re-implicated by the trial Court and the summons have been issued.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records.

6. A perusal of the order impugned in the petition reveals that the trial Court had perused the final report, statement of the nine eye witnesses as well as CCTV footage annexed to the final report. After watching the CCTV footages in the open Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the complainant, the Special Public Prosecutor had submitted that the deleted accused persons are also found in the place of occurrence and participated in the said occurrence. Therefore, the trial Court has arrived at a prima facie view that the deleted accused persons have also participated in the occurrence.

7. In such view of the matter, the trial Court had not accepted the conclusion arrived at by the investigation officer. The trial Court has further found that since CCTV footages are available, there is no need to order further investigation to add the petitioners herein as additional accused persons.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2014) 3 SCC 306 (Dharam Pal and others Vs.State of Haryana and another) in paragraph No.35 has held as follows:

“35.In our view, the Magistrate has a role to play while committing the case to the Court of Session upon taking cognizance on the police report submitted before him under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. In the event the Magistrate disagrees with the police report, he has two choices. He may act on the basis of a protest petition that may be filed, or he may, while disagreeing with the police report, issue process and summon the accused. Thereafter, if on being satisfied that a case had been made out to proceed against the persons named in column no.2 of the report, proceed to try the said persons or if he was satisfied that a case had been made out which was triable by the Court of Session, he may commit the case to the Court of Session to proceed further in the matter. “

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 (Nupur Talwar Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi and another) in Paragraph Nos.16 & 17 has held as follows: “16. Section 190 of the Code lays down the conditions which are requisite for the initiation of a criminal proceeding. At this stage the Magistrate is required to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts and materials before him. In doing so, the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer and he is competent to exercise his discretion irrespective of the views expressed by the Police in its report and may prima facie find out whether an offence has been made out or not.

17. The taking of cognizance means the point in time when a Court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence which appears to have been committed. At the stage of taking of cognizance of offence, the Court has only to see whether prima facie there are reasons for issuing the process and whether the ingredients of the offence are there on record.”

10. In the present case, without relying upon any additional document or evidence, the trial Court has chosen to rely upon CCTV footages annexed to the charge sheet and has arrived at a prima facie view that the present petitioners herein are also involved in the occurrence. As per judgments cited supra, it is clear that the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigation officer. In the present case, relying upon the existing material on record, the trial Court has disagreed with the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency.

11. The view taken by the Court is only prima facie view and it is always open to the petitioners to assail or challenge the view during trial or by filing a discharge petition, if they are so advised.

12. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07.10.2026 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No msa To

1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Madurai

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Melur Sub Division, Melur Police Station, Melur, Madurai District. (Crime No . 86/2025)

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. msa CRL OP(MD) NO. 22864 of 2026 and Crl.MP(MD).Nos.21787 & 21791 of 2026 07.10.2026