Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: judicial magistrate eraniel in Ganesan vs Ganapathy on 27 November, 2019Matching Fragments
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9812 of 2017 petitioners by way of filing a private complaint for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b) and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. It is seen from the records that a similar complaint was given to the Manavalakurichi Police Station and an F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.241 of 2005 for the very same offences. After investigation, a closure report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. A notice was also issued to the respondent and since the respondent did not file any protest petition, the concerned Magistrate Court on being satisfied with the closure report, took it on file and closed the case.
2. The respondent in the mean time had filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. This private complaint has been filed with the very same allegations and the Court below has taken cognizance of the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent ought to have filed a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, after the closure report was filed by the Police. Thereafter, it was left open to the http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9812 of 2017 learned Judicial Magistrate to take up the protest petition or to treat it as a private complaint and proceed further in accordance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in this case, the respondent has parellely filed a private complaint and the Court below has taken cognizance of the same. The learned counsel submitted that the second complaint is not maintainable on the same set of facts. In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel has relied the judgment of this Court in the case of A.Krishna Rao Vs. L.S.Kumar reported in 1998 (I) CTC 329.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the Police did not properly investigate this case and therefore, the respondent had no other way except to file a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. The learned counsel submitted that the Court below had applied its mind and found that the offence has been made out and the summons was issued on the petitioners and therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the proceedings at this stage.
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9812 of 2017
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
6. In this case, it is admitted that the facts of the case, which became a subject matter of investigation by the Police in Crime No.241 of 2005 and the facts of the case which form part of the private complaint, are one and the same. The respondent had initially given a Police complaint and the concerned Police after a detailed investigation have filed a closure report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. A notice was issued to the respondent and since the respondent did not file a protest petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate took the closure report on file and closed the case. This order remains unchallenged.