Marimuthu v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikundam Range, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.2.The Inspector

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 02.12.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHCriminal Original Petition(MD)No.15815 of 2011 Marimuthu... PetitionerVs.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikundam Range, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

The Inspector of Police, Alwar Thirunagari Police Station, Alwar Thirunagari, Thoothukudi District.... RespondentsPrayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. todirect the second respondent to register an F.I.R. On the basis of thecomplaint lodged by the petitioner dated 10.09.2011 and pass such furtheror other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.A.ThiruvadikumarFor Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct thesecond respondent to register an F.I.R. On the basis of the complaintlodged by the petitioner dated 10.09.2011. 2. Heard Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Criminalside) appearing for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in hisargument that he may be permitted to present a new complaint before thesecond respondent police, since the petitioner has clubbed both privateland as well as Government land.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in hisargument that if prima facie case is made out, the said complaint wouldbe registered and the investigation would also be commenced. However, hewould submit in his argument that if for any reason there is no primafacie case made out, it is for the petitioner to proceed in accordancewith law and cannot seek a direction of this Court, to register acomplaint.

Considering the submissions made by both sides, the petitioneris permitted to present a fresh complaint in respect of the private landsbefore the second respondent police within a period of one week from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order and after receipt of thecomplaint the second respondent is directed to register the complaint ifprima facie case is made out. If in the event of the complaint is closed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2for want of prima facie case the petitioner is not remediless. Therelief sought for by the petitioner for registration of the complaint hasbeen 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 judgmentreported in 2007 (4) Crimes 338 (SC).

According to the said judgment, the complainant should approachthe Superintendent of Police, in the event of the 2nd respondent policefailed to proceed with the registration of the complaint and on thefailure 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 ofthe learned Judicial Magistrate, either to take cognizance of the caseunder Section 200 Cr.P.C. or to refer the complaint, for beinginvestigated by the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

So far as this case is concerned, the petitioner is yet to seekremedy before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate concerned beforeapproaching 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 thepresent case, the petitioner had approached this Court, without followingthe procedures mentioned therein and therefore, this Court has no otheroption to dispose the petition with the aforesaid observations.