WP Crl. No. 1005 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN WP Crl. No. 1005 of 2025 Va.Pugazhendi S/o. T. Vasu, Plot No.68, AVS Housing Colony, ESI Ring Road,Hosur-635 126. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Joint Secretary to Government Home (Police XIII) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 3. The Director General of Police Head of Police Force, D.G.P. Office, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 4. The Superintendent of Police O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District. 5. The Inspector of Police Perumanallur Police Station, Tiruppur District. 6. D.Prakash Son of Damodaran No.12, South Koviloor, Amman Koil Street,Chintadripet, Chennai-600002. (R6 is impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 26.11.2025 in WP.Crl.No.688 of 2025 in WP.Crl.No.1005 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 1005 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 Prayer: Writ Petition Criminal filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 09-08-2025 passed by the 5th respondent which was brought to the petitioner's knowledge on 26-09-2025 by rejecting his request for reinvestigation in the case which was emerged in Crime No.559 of 2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to conduct re-investigation based on the petitioner's representation dated 16-07-2025 For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For Respondent(s): Mr.Ganesh Kumar for R1 to R5 Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) Mr.P.T.Perumal for R6 ORDER This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.08.2025 passed by the 5th respondent thereby rejected the request made by the petitioner to conduct re-investigation in Crime No.559 of 2026 on the file of the 5th respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and perused the entire documents placed on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 1005 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 3. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner is neither a victim nor a complainant, however, he is a permanent resident of the address given in the petition and he is very close to the prosecution case from the beginning, therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 5th respondent seeking for re-investigation in Crime No.559 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC on the ground that the accused falsely produced some other car instead of the car, which was originally involved in the accident. However, the said request was rejected by the 5th respondent for the reason that already investigation has been completed in Crime No.559 of 2010 and final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.74 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi. After full fledged trial, the accused was convicted for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed appeal before the appellate court and the appeal is also pending in Crl.A.No.62 of 2024 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Court No.II, Tiruppur. While pending trial, the accused also filed a petition for transfer of his case from the file of Additional District Court No.II, Tiruppur and the appeal is pending on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 1005 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since it was a murder, the accused had changed the car and projected a new car to show that as if it was an accident. However, the Investigation Officer, without conducting investigation properly and without even identifying the car, which was involved in the accident, filed the final report. 5. It is to be noted that the case has been ended in conviction and as against the said order of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal and it is pending, therefore, the petitioner can very well approach the appellate court for appropriate relief in the appeal, filed by the accused. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate court for appropriate relief. 29-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ssd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 1005 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The State Rep By The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Joint Secretary to Government Home (Police XIII) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 3. The Director General of Police Head of Police Force, D.G.P. Office, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 4. The Superintendent of Police O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District. 5. The Inspector of Police Perumanallur Police Station, Tiruppur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 1005 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. ssd WP Crl. No. 1005 of 2025 29-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis