@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R. Subbiah, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records culminating in S.T.C.No.615 of 2012, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore and to quash the same and consequently, to direct for denovo investigation to be conducted by a competent officer to be nominated by the 2nd respondent, in respect of the accident that occurred on 20.03.2014 near Tejaa Shakthi College at Karuthampatti at Avinashi Road and registered on the file of the 1st respondent-Police as Crime No.98 of 2012.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it has been stated by the petitioner, inter alias, as follows:-
2-1. The petitioner possessed a Diploma in Civil Engineering and he is a licensed draughtsman in Ambur Municipality. The petitioner''s avocation is to prepare layout plans and sketches for individuals and Real Estate developers. On 19.03.2012, the petitioner''s services were requested by one Mr. Theerthagiri, Advocate of Ambur, for preparing layout sketch for his Real Estate Business. Accordingly, the petitioner went along with the said Mr.Theerthagiri in a Ford Fiesta Car bearing Reg.No.TN 01 AB 2453, which was driven by one Mr.Sangeetharaj. The petitioner took one Mr.Rajkumar along with him to assist him. All of them left Ambur in the said Ford Fiesta Car around 07.00 pm. The petitioner and the said Rajkumar were seated in the rear seat, Mr. Theerthagiri was seated in the front passenger seat and one Mr.Sangeetharaj drove the car.
2-2. It is further stated that on 20.03.2012, the petitioner''s wife came to know that the car, in which the petitioner and the three others were travelling, met with an accident in the early hours of 20.03.2012, near Tejaa Shakthi College at Karuthampatti to Avinashi Road. The petitioner and the three others sustained grievous injuries and were admitted at Revathi Hospital in Tirupur. The petitioner''s wife rushed to the Hospital and found that the petitioner and the three others were all grievously injured and were taking treatment there and the petitioner was unconscious. The petitioner was discharged from the said Revathi Hospital on 07.04.2012 and he was referred to higher medical centre for further management. The petitioner has been taking treatment at various hospitals till date by spending huge amount of money. The petitioner has been confined to his home and is unable to take care of his needs on his own.
2-3. The said Mr.Rajkumar also sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment. After his treatment, when the petitioner''s wife met him and enquired about the accident and the events that transpired on 20.03.2012, she learnt that at around 5.00 am, on 20.03.2012, when the car was being driven by Mr. Sangeetharaj, a container lorry, which was recklessly driven from the opposite direction, came and dashed against the car. The said Mr.Rajkumar further informed that after some time of the accident, all the injured persons were taken in 108 Ambulance to the Hospital for treatment. Being an accident case, since the passengers sustained grievous injuries, the petitioner''s relatives were informed by the said Mr.Theerthagiri, Advocate, that he would take care of the Motor Accident Claims cases for all of them.
2-4. It is further stated that after some time, when the petitioner''s relatives approached the said Mr.Theerthagiri and enquired about the status of the case, they were informed by him that he did not file any case. Hence, the petitioner decided to approach another Advocate for filing MCOP. The petitioner''s wife was asked to obtain the FIR and Final Report filed by the 1st respondent-Police in respect of the accident. Upon obtaining the certified copies of the documents and upon perusing the same, the petitioner was shocked to find that the petitioner was arrayed as an absconding accused and was shown as the driver of the car. The petitioner has not been served with any summons till date by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore. The petitioner does not know driving, does not possess a four wheeler license and did not drive the car on the fateful day. However, the FIR, statements recorded by the 1st respondent-Police and the Final Report bearing No.186 of 2012 dated 26.07.2012, state that the petitioner was the driver of the car. The Final Report of the 1st respondent-Police against the petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC (3 counts) is said to have been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore on 03.09.2012. The same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore on 17.10.2012 under Section 279 and 338 of IPC in S.T.C.No.615 of 2012. The allegation made by the 1st respondent-Police in the FIR that at the time of accident, the petitioner''s husband was driving the car, is false. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.615 of 2012 and to order for denovo investigation in respect of the said accident.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a detailed argument reiterating the averments made in the affidavit. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of accident, at the time of accident, the car was driven only by one Sangeetharaj and not by the petitioner herein. The petitioner was not in any way responsible for the accident. In the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner was unconscious. Even today, he finds it very difficult to take of his own needs. Only when the petitioner''s wife approached the said Advocate Theerthagiri to know about the accident case, she came to know that the criminal came has already been filed and charge sheet has also been filed as against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has not received any summons in the said case. Only after coming know about the charge sheet filed against the petitioner, immediately the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court to quash the impugned proceedings and to order for denovo investigation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment reported in Vnay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, and submitted that when the investigation is unfair, tainted, mala fide and smacks of foul play, the Court can set aside such an investigation and direct for fresh or denovo investigation and if necessary, even by another independent investigating agency. By relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court can exercise the power and order for denovo investigation.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to order for denovo investigation, stating that in the instant case, absolutely there is no need for fresh investigation/denovo investigation. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to the statement given by the said Rajkumar; in his statement, the said Rajkumar has categorically stated that the car was driven by Mr.Chandran (petitioner herein). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further contend that only if the investigation ex-facie is unfair, tainted, mala fide and smacks of foul play, the Court can set aside such an investigation and direct for fresh or denovo investigation. But, in the instant case, no such situation has arisen. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the materials available on record.
6. No doubt, this Court can order for denovo investigation, if the investigation ex-facie is unfair, tainted, mala fide and smacks of foul play. But, as per the dictum laid down in the judgment relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner, Vnay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, such power has to be exercised fairly, only in rarest of rare cases and not in all cases. In the instant case, the entire submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not supported by any material evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate his contentions. Further, this Court is of the view that denovo investigation can not be ordered mechanically, in the absence of any material evidence supporting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, only when this Court comes to the conclusion that the investigation was not conducted by the 1st respondent in a proper and fair manner and the investigation was conducted in violation of the settled principles of investigative cannons, this Court can order of denovo investigation. But, in the instant case, I do not find any such situation. By merely accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court cannot order for denovo investigation. I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. In fine, the criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
