Madras High Court
Saradha vs B.Senthil Kumar on 6 March, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2019
Saradha ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. B.Senthil Kumar
2. B.Jayakumar
3. S.B.Sekar
4. S.Venkatesan
5. J.John Bosco
6. C.Vinayagamoorthy
7. S.Shanmugam
...Respondents
The Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and to set aside the
order passed in C.M.P.No.1946 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and direct to take the case on file
and to proceed the case in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prakash Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Sathyamoorthy
For R1,2,4 to 7
For R3 Notice served - No appearance
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records and to set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.1946 of 2018 http://www.judis.nic.in 2 dated 20.09.2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
2. According to the revision petitioner, he filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the respondent police against the respondents for offence under Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondent police has given the CSR number and investigated the matter but they have not registered the case. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the same was taken on file in C.M.P.No.1946 of 2018. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the civil suit in O.S.No.232 of 2017 is pending on the file of the learned District Munsif Court between the one of the accused and the petitioner and the dispute is purely civil in nature. Challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has filed the revision before this Court.
3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that he filed a complaint before the respondent police and they have given CSR number and investigated the matter. But they have not registered the case against the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 accused/respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate, Alandur and the same was dismissed on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature and pending before the same Court. The learned counsel would further submit that the patta has been in the name of the mother of the 7th respondent. However, the same is forged one. That facts have not been considered by the learned Magistrate. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 SCC 559 (C.P.Subash vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and others). Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Civil Suit in O.S.No.232 of 2017 is pending before the learned District Munsif, Alandur between the same parties on the very same subject matter. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner, which does not warrant any interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and http://www.judis.nic.in 4 perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a complaint before the respondent police and CSR number has also been given. But he has not impleaded the police as a party for not registering a case against the respondents/accused and not filing a report. Admittedly, the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.232 of 2017 and the same is pending before the learned District Munsif, Alandur. In the suit, the seventh respondent is arrayed as defendant and this revision petitioner is arrayed as second defendant. Admittedly, regarding the property, civil suit is pending. Further, the petitioner has not stated as to why the petitioner has not filed the private complaint against the police. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case on hand. In the said case, the police have registered an FIR and investigated the matter. However, a petition was filed before the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed the FIR. The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court and observed that investigation should be allowed to continue to bring out the truth.
7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 citations referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case in hand and the contention of the counsel is not acceptable. Since the allegation leveled against the accused is purely civil in nature. Admittedly, civil suit in O.S.No.232 of 2017 is pending between the parties.
8. Under these circumstances, there is no perversity in the order passed by the trial Court and no merit in this revision and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
7. In the result, this criminal revision is dismissed.
06.03.2019
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non speaking order
rli
To
The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
P.VELMURUGAN.J.,
rli
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2019
06.03.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in