Madras High Court
R.A.Titas Athithan vs Sivaram on 20 March, 2017
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 29.06.2021
DELIVERED ON : 01.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
R.A.Titas Athithan
S/o. Anthonymuthu Nadar : Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sivaram
2. Saravanan
3. Rajendran
4. Edwin Brit Joesh : Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to admit this revision on file, to call for the records from the
lower Court and to duly set aside the judgment passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District in Crl.M.P.No.1283 of 2017
dated 20.03.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam
For Respondents : Mr.R.J.Karthick for R2
Mr.P.Mahendran for R3
R-1 and R-4 -No Appearance
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ ORDER
1/8
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the judgment passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District in Crl.M.P.No.
1283 of 2017 dated 20.03.2017.
2.Heard, Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and
Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
3.The Revision Petitioner lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police,
Sankarankovil Town Police Station against the Accused/Respondents alleging
that they have scolded him in filthy language and also assaulted while
questioning about the disconnection of water connection given illegally to one
Marimuthu. The Police did not take any action against the Accused Persons.
Therefore, the Revision Petitioner filed a Petition before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Sankarankovil in Crl.M.P.No.1283 of 2017. The learned Judicial
Magistrate, on assessment of sworn statement, had dismissed the Petition.
4.Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sankarankovil, the Petitioner filed this Revision Petition before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/8
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
5.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the
orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil in Crl.M.P.No.
1283 of 2017, dated 20.03.2017 is perverse. Therefore, the Revision has to be
allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate is to be directed to pass
appropriate order.
6.Point for Consideration:
Whether the order passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil in dismissing the
Crl.M.P.No.1283 of 2017, dated 20.03.2017, is
perverse warranting interference by this Court?
7.Perused the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil in
Crl.M.P.No.1283 of 2017 dated 20.03.2017 and the grounds of the revision
filed by the Revision Petitioner.
8.The arguments of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that
the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil in
Crl.M.P.No.1283 of 2017 dated 20.03.2017 is perverse. Therefore, the
revision has to be allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate is to be directed to
pass appropriate orders, is found unacceptable and unreasonable considering
the well-reasoned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/8
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
9.The learned Judicial Magistrate had relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar
Pradesh and Others-IV [(2014) 2 SCC 1] and also the petition filed by the
petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21652 of 2016 in which the Petitioner herein
had obtained favourable orders against the Inspector of Polcie, Sankarankovil
Town Police Station/Respondent in the said Criminal Original Petition, for the
very same occurrence in which this Court had directed the Inspector of Police,
Sankarankovil Town Police Station, to register the case and investigate the
case. Accordingly, the Police had investigated and found that the allegations
made in the complaint by the Petitioner therein was found to be fictitious.
Therefore, the case was closed by the Police. Further, the learned Judicial
Magistrate had relied on the ruling of this Court reported in 2016-2-L.W.
(Crl.)499 in the case of Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant
Commissioner of Police, in which this Court had given guidelines to the
person who is aggrieved. When the Police are reluctant to take the complaint
on file and register the case, the aggrieved party shall give a complaint through
registered post or directly to the Superintendent of Police in the District or
Commissioner of Police in the City and has to wait for their action. Still, if
action is not taken, they can invoke the powers of the Court by approaching
the Court of the learned Magistrate concerned. If the aggrieved party
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/8
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
approaches the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, he/she can give the
complaint orally or in writing. As per the said guidelines, if the said complaint
is given to the learned Magistrate, he/she shall state the facts that earlier
complaint to the police was not taken on file. Therefore, he/she had
approached the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned. There, no
action was initiated. Therefore, he/she had approached the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate after having exhausted all the remedy available,
with private complaint.
10.In this case, the petitioner had not mentioned whether he had
preferred complaint to the Superintendent of Police after the Sankarankovil
Town Police refused to initiate action. Further, in the sworn statement, he had
mentioned that Sankarankovil Town Police had taken the complaint and issued
CSR receipt. That shows the Police had taken action after CSR receipts are
issued and they conducted preliminary enquiry. If the allegations made in the
complaint are found reasonable and true, then they would have registered the
case. Also, the learned Judicial Magistrate in his order stated that as per the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari
vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others-IV [(2014) 2 SCC 1] before
registering the case, the police are within their power to conduct preliminary
enquiries in non-cognizable cases. Before approaching the Court with a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/8
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
private complaint, the aggrieved party, as complainant, shall furnish the
closure report regarding the earlier complaint and the action taken by the
Police.
11.In this case, the Petitioner had not mentioned about the closure of
the case by the Police after obtaining the favourable orders through directions
from the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21652 of 2016. Therefore,
the learned Judicial Magistrate felt that the Petitioner herein had suppressed
the fact of closure report by the Police. It had not been mentioned in the
petition and affidavit filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sankarankovil. The learned Magistrate felt that the petitioner had not followed
the guidelines issued in the reported rulings of this Court in 2016-2-L.W.
(Crl.)499 in the case of Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant
Commissioner of Police. Therefore, he had dismissed the complaint filed
under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Since the order is found well-reasoned order
as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari and as per
the Ruling of this Court in 2016-2-L.W.(Crl.)499 in the case of Sugesan
Transport Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, the order of
the learned Magistrate is not found perverse warranting interference by this
Court. Therefore, the point for consideration is answered against the
petitioner. However, the petitioner is within his rights to move private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6/8
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate
concerned.
In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. The order passed by
the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil, Tenkasi Ditrict in Crl.M.P.No.1283 of
2017 dated 20.03.2017 is confirmed.
01.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
dh
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7/8
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
dh Pre-delivery judgment made in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2017 01.10.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/8