Tirunelveli medical college assistant professor's car damaged after anti-ragging action- HC orders further investigation
Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ordered a further investigation into the alleged attack and damage on the car of the assistant professor of Tirunelveli medical college after he initiated action against some senior students on a ragging complaint. The bench observed that a Magistrate cannot mechanically accept a police closure report without properly examining the materials on record.
While hearing a revision petition filed by the assistant professor against the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirunelveli's October 28, 2025 order dismissing his protest petition against the closure report filed by the Tirunelveli High Ground Police in a 2024 case, Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed, "Ragging is not youthful exuberance gone astray but a corrosive assertion of power, and when authority intervenes to prevent it, the law must ensure that such intervention is not met with silence, threat or retaliation."
The court set aside the Judicial Magistrate's order accepting the police's "undetected" report and directed the Tirunelveli City Police Commissioner to entrust the investigation to a different officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). It also directed that the investigation be conducted under the supervision of a senior officer and completed within three months.
"The power to direct further investigation is not an ornamental power. It is intended to ensure that the truth is not sacrificed at the altar of an incomplete investigation," the judge observed, reports TNIE.
The case relates to an alleged attack on the car of the professor, also the senior warden of the men's hostel at Tirunelveli Medical College, in 2024. He was entrusted with monitoring ragging activities in the hostel.
In April 2024, he conducted an inquiry into the complaint of two parents of first year students about ragging at the hostel. Based on his report, disciplinary action was initiated against a senior student by the college management.
The petitioner submitted that around 1 a.m. on May 15, 2024, while he was visiting the hostel, unidentified persons allegedly threw a paver block from the terrace, damaging the windshield of his car. Following his complaint, the High Ground Police in Tirunelveli registered a case. However, after investigation, the police filed an "undetected" closure report, stating that the offenders could not be identified. The petitioner then moved the Judicial Magistrate-I Court in Tirunelveli seeking further investigation, but the plea was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, he approached the Madras High Court by filing the present criminal revision petition.
Justice Gowri observed that when a final report is filed by the police stating that a case is 'undetected' or closed as 'mistake of fact', the magistrate is not expected to act as a mere post office.
"The magistrate should accept the report after issuing notice to the de facto complainant or reject the report and take cognizance if there is commission of an offence or order further investigation if the investigation is found to be incomplete, by treating the protest petition as a complaint," the judge explained.
The court also said as reported by DT NEXT, "This court is conscious of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. The revisional court doesn’t ordinarily interfere with every order passed by the learned Magistrate. However, where order suffers from non-application of mind, where relevant materials have not been considered, where the investigation appears incomplete, where the learned Magistrate has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in law, the interference is justified."
"The background of ragging, the disciplinary action taken by the college administration, the petitioner’s role as senior warden, the alleged throwing of a paver block from a hostel terrace at midnight and the possible motive angle are circumstances which warranted further investigation. Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the protest petition in a mechanical manner," the judge quoted by TOI.
"When a senior warden entrusted with the duty of curbing ragging complains that an act of violence followed disciplinary action taken against ragging, the criminal justice system cannot afford to respond with a shrug of helplessness unless every reasonable investigative door has been opened and examined," the judge observed.
Allowing the criminal revision petition, the High Court held that the case needed a fresh investigation. It clarified that the petitioner was not seeking the conviction of any identified student but only a fair and proper investigation by a different investigating officer under the supervision of a senior officer.
