Madras High Court
T.Udayasankar vs S.Bharathsingh on 17 September, 2019
Author: V.Parthiban
Bench: V.Parthiban
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 17.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
CRL. R.C. (MD) NO. 633 OF 2019
T.Udayasankar .. Petitioner
- Vs -
S.Bharathsingh .. Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the order dated 15.5.2018, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, in C.M.P. No.714 of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Sasikumar
For Respondents : Mr. T.Lajapathi Roy
ORDER
The present criminal revision case has been filed against the order dated 15.5.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, in C.M.P. No. 714/2017 dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner u/s 200 Cr.P.C. to take action against the respondent for the offence punishable u/s 211 Cr.P.C. __________ Crl. R.C. No.633/2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the respondent has given a false complaint out of previous enmity against the revision petitioner on 26.3.09 in Kottar Police Station and since no action was taken on the complaint, the respondent filed Crl. M.P. No.1854/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, u/s 156 Cr.P.C. and following the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, a case was registered in Crime No.485/09, against the petitioner, for the offences u/s 294 (b), 447 and 506 (ii) IPC on 10.5.09 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station. The allegation in the complaint was that on 26.3.09, at about 3.00 a.m., some accused persons trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant/the respondent herein and threw a petrol bomb. Ultimately, after investigation, final report was filed closing the case as mistake of fact on 30.6.09. Since a false complaint has been filed, at the instance of the respondent, the petitioner has approached the Magistrate Court and filed private complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C., relying on a judgment of this Court in M.Vijayakumar – Vs – State (2011 (2) TNLR 174). The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and found that no prima face case has been made out to proceed against the accused u/s 211 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, dismissed the petition, against which the present revision has been filed.
__________ http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. R.C. No.633/2019 3
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without properly appreciating the averments in the complaint has erroneously held that the investigation officer in the case had not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and, therefore, held that the ingredients of the offence u/s 211 Cr.P.C., was not prima facie made out. It is further submitted that the findings rendered by the Court below are manifestly erroneous as the allegations are against the respondent and not against the investigation officer. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the court below deserves to be set aside.
4. On notice, the respondent has appeared through Mr.Lajapathy Roy, and counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, apart from several averments, which particularly finds place in para-7 of the said counter affidavit, it is further averred that the respondent has filed protest petition in Crl. M.P. No.8628/19 with regard to the final report filed by the police on 30.06.09 referring the case as a mistake of fact and the protest petition is pending consideration and, therefore, the original proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, did not come to an end at all, in which case, the present revision is not maintainable. __________ http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. R.C. No.633/2019 4
5. This Court has bestowed its best attention to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
6. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the Court below coupled with the factual matrix of the case and the various petitions filed by the parties to the lis, this Court is in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent that pending the protest petition, filed by the respondent before the court below, the present revision is not maintainable. Once the protest petition is pending consideration, the private complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent u/s 200 Cr.P.C. loses its efficacy since all depends on the outcome of the protest petition petition filed by the respondent herein. If the protest petition is decided in favour of the respondent herein, the entire complexion of the case would undergo a change in which case there would not be any cause of action for the revision petitioner to file a private complaint against the respondent u/s 200 Cr.P.C.
7. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the present revision petition is not maintainable and the same need not be entertained at this stage. __________ http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. R.C. No.633/2019 5 Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. However, while dismissing the revision petition, this Court clarifies that the right of the petitioner stands preserved to proceed against the respondent in case of any false case being filed against him in regard to the subject matter of the criminal case which gave rise to the filing of the present revision petition in case any adverse order is passed in the protest petition against the petitioner therein.
8. Accordingly, preserving such right of the revision petitioner, this Court finds that the revision petition need not be entertained and, hence, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
17.09.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
GLN
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.II
Nagercoil.
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl. R.C. No.633/2019
6
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
GLN
CRL. R.C. (MD) NO. 633 OF 2019
17.09.2019
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl. R.C. No.633/2019