K.Ganesan v. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.2. State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 154(3), 156(3), 190, 200, 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in hisargument that the complaint given by the petitioner to the secondrespondent was not registered. Hence, he requests this Court that thesecond respondent may be directed to hold an enquiry and to registera case accordingly.
- Para 55. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Courtdirects the second respondent to ascertain the prima facie case from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2the complainant and if it is made out, to register the complaint andif no prima facie case is made out, to drop the complaint.…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 17.02.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHCriminal Original Petition(MD)No.1933 of 2011K.Ganesan ... Petitioner Vs.
The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Karivalamvanthanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to direct the second respondent to register a case against theaccused based on the complaint, dated 30.07.2010, lodged by thepetitioner. For Petitioner :: M/s.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran For Respondents :: Mrs.S.Devasena, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct thesecond respondent to register a case against the accused, based onthe complaint, dated 30.07.2010, lodged by the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in hisargument that the complaint given by the petitioner to the secondrespondent was not registered. Hence, he requests this Court that thesecond respondent may be directed to hold an enquiry and to registera case accordingly.
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) wouldsubmit in her argument that current paper received and the saidcomplaint is under petition enquiry stage and if prima facie case ismade out, the said complaint would be registered and theinvestigation would also be commenced. However, she would submit inher argument that if for any reason there is no prima facie case madeout, it is for the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law andcannot seek a direction of this Court to register a complaint.
Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Courtdirects the second respondent to ascertain the prima facie case from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2the complainant and if it is made out, to register the complaint andif no prima facie case is made out, to drop the complaint. In thesaid circumstances, the petitioner is not remediless. The reliefsought for by the petitioner for registration of the complaint hasbeen dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State ofU.P. (2008 (1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC) equivalent to 2007 (4) Crimes 338(SC). According to the said judgment, the complainant should approachthe Superintendent of Police in the event of the second respondentpolice failing to proceed with the registration of the complaint andon the failure of the Superintendent of Police to pass any orderunder Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant can approach the Judicial Magistrate concerned by filing a complaint either under Section 190 Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to pursue thecomplaint.
It is the discretion of the learned Judicial Magistrateeither to take cognizance of the case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or torefer the complaint for being investigated by the jurisdictionalpolice under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. So far as this case is concerned, the petitioner is yet to seek remedy before the jurisdictionalJudicial Magistrate concerned before approaching this Court. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to direct thepetitioner to file a complaint before the Judicial Magistrateconcerned, if necessary, after the formalities before police, endagainst the petitioner. On such filing of the complaint, the JudicialMagistrate concerned may either refer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. orproceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter only the petitioner hasto approach this Court, if necessary. Therefore, the petitionershould approach this Court only after exhausting all the processes oflaw as contemplated.
Operative part
But he had approached this Court withoutfollowing the procedures mentioned therein and therefore this Courthas no other option except to dispose of the petition with theaforesaid observations. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(Crl. Side)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar To1. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.2. The Inspector of Police, Karivalamvanthanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Advocate SR.No.9050akvakm/08.03.11 /2p-5c/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1933 of 201117.02.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 154(3), 156(3), 190, 200, 482.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.