Veeran Chettiar v. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, Madurai

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 15.11.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHCrl.O.P.(MD)No.12064 of 2011 Veeran Chettiar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, Madurai District.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District. ... RespondentsPRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 3rd respondent to register the case based on complaint given by the complainant on 05.09.2011.For Petitioner :Mr.C.Thiruppathi For Respondents :Mr.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 3rdrespondent to register the case based on complaint given by the complainant on 05.09.2011.2. Heard Mr.C.Thiruppathi, learned counsel for the petitioner andMr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the complaint given by the petitioner to the respondents was not registered. Hence, he requests this Court that the 3rd respondent may be directed to hold an enquiry and to register a case accordingly.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner did not co-operate with the enquiry and ifhe is cooperated with the enquiry the would enquire into complaint of the petitioner and if prima facie case is made out, the said complaint would be registered and the investigation would also be commenced. However, he would submit in his argument that if for any reason there is no primafacie case made out, it is for the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law and cannot seek a direction of this Court, to register acomplaint.

Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2police and give statement. On such statement recorded by the 3rdrespondent, he is directed to go into the allegations made in the complaint and to find out the prima facie case and if for any reason, there is no prima facie case made out, it is for the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law and cannot seek a direction of this Courtto register a complaint.

Further, this Court could see that the relief sought for by the petitioner for registration of the complaint has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. reported in 2008(1)MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC) equivalent to the judgment reported in 2007 (4)Crimes 338 (SC).

According to the said judgment, the complainant should approach the Superintendent of Police, in the event of the 3rd respondent police failed to proceed with the registration of the complaint and on the failure of the Superintendent of Police to pass any order under Section154(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant should approach the Judicial Magistrateconcerned by filing a complaint either under Section 190 Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to pursue the complaint and it is the discretion of the learned Judicial Magistrate, either to take cognizance of the case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or to refer the complaint, for being investigated by the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

So far as this case is concerned, the petitioner is yet to seek remedy before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate concerned before approaching this Court. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to direct the petitioner to file a complaint before the JudicialMagistrate concerned if necessary, after the formalities before police, ended against the petitioner. On such filing of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate concerned may either refer the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C.Thereafter only, the petitioner has to approach this Court, if necessary, only after exhausting all the process of law as contemplated. But, in the present case, the petitioner had approached this Court, without following the procedures mentioned therein and therefore, this Court has no other option to dispose the petition with the aforesaid observations.