CRL RC/1495/2026 of G.R.Deepak Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case challenges the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, in CMP.No.5557 of 2024 in C.C.No.113 of 2020, dated 18.03.2026, dismissing the petition filed by the de facto complainant under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., seeking further investigation.

2. It is the case of the de facto complainant that on 05.01.2020, the second respondent herein and two others had wrongfully restrained him, abused him in filthy language, attacked him and committed the offence of criminal intimidation and snatched his mobile phone. On investigation, the first respondent police registered a First Information Report in Crime No.9 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 & 506(I) of IPC against three accused, but filed the final report only as against the second respondent herein, omitting the two other accused. Though the said accused were not named, the petitioner claims that they could be identified.

3. Before the examination of witnesses, the petitioner sought further investigation, as according to him, no notice was issued to him before the final report deleting the two other accused was accepted by the learned Magistrate.

4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the pleadings, held that the allegation with regard to the theft of the mobile phone was not mentioned in the FIR and there was no need for further investigation.

5. Learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent was accused of the offence in the year 2020 and has been facing trial for more than three years; that further delay would cause undue hardship to him; and that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would fairly concede that no notice was sent to the petitioner before the learned Magistrate accepted the final report filed by the respondent police deleting the names of the two other accused.

7. It is seen from the First Information Report that the petitioner accused not only the second respondent but also two others of the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 & 506(I) of IPC. The first respondent police had deleted the two other accused and filed a final report only as against the second respondent. Before accepting the final report, the learned Magistrate ought to have issued notice to the de facto complainant since two other accused, who according to the de facto complainant can be identified, had been omitted.

8. This Court, in C.Ve.Shanmugam vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2010) SCC OnLine Mad 517, has held as follows:-

“16. When the said law came to be again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission v. S.Papaiah 1998(3) Crimes 40 (SC), the same was reaffirmed. There are several such judgements rendered subsequently wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the said law laid down in Bhagawant Singh's case [AIR 1985 SC 1285]. Thus, undoubtedly, it is a settled law as of now that before accepting a final report, where some of the accused, whose names find a place in the FIR, have been omitted, the learned Magistrate must issue notice to the de facto complainant. On receipt of such notice, the de facto complainant has got right to file a petition known as 'protest petition'. Only after hearing him, the learned Magistrate has to pass an order either accepting the final report in its entirety or rejecting the same and to proceed to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the materials on record and the Court can direct further investigation or to treat the protest petition as a complaint in terms of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

9. The issue is not whether the petitioner has sought for further investigation by improving his version as observed by the learned Magistrate. The issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek further investigation since two accused referred in the complaint have been omitted in the final report. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to seek further investigation on that ground.

10. Therefore, the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, in CMP.No.5557 of 2024 in C.C.No.113 of 2020, is set aside. The first respondent police is directed to conduct further investigation and file a further final report before the learned Magistrate within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 30-09-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No ham To

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. ham Crl.R.C.No. 1495 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.12919 of 2026 30-09-2026