Allowed

S.M. Rajendra Raja v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Dec 2013CRL RC(MD)/804/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a criminal revision petition. It held that a magistrate cannot dismiss a request for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. merely because it involves a civil dispute, ignoring serious criminal allegations of coercion and threats. The matter was remanded for investigation.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed; the matter was remanded to the Judicial Magistrate to refer it to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

S.M. Rajendra Raja Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.12.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.804 of 2013

¶7

S.M.Rajendra Raja Proprietor of Arthy Charcoals, S/o.Madasamy Raja, 4B, Oyyampuli Street, Rajapalayam- 626 117, .. Petitioner/ Virudhunagar District. De-facto complainant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State Rep. By its Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, Rajapalayam,

¶10

Virudhunagar District. .. Respondent/Complainant

¶11

2.Kutty @ Jayasubramania Raja .. Respondent/

¶12

Proposed Accused

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the orders passed in Cr.M.P.No.9323 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District dated 27.09.2013 and to set aside the same and allow the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Sankar For R1 :Mr.S.Prabha

¶15

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, dated 27.09.2013 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner seeking to refer the case to the concerned police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶18

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam has negatived the prayer on the ground that it is purely a civil matter and the complainant has to resort to the civil remedy for recovery of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ balance amount.

¶19

¶20

3.Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

¶21

4.Heard Mr.M.Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶22

5.On a perusal of the complaint it appears that some allegations are made against the accused by the complainant that the accused threatened him and abused him in filthy language and the relevant portion of the allegations are extracted as under:-

¶23

“Kotpy; U}.6,25,000/- vd Bgrp 5 fhBrhiyfs; je;jhh;fs;. 20.03.2013 Kjy; 20.07.2013 tiu Bjjp Bghl;L je;jhh;fs;. kPjp U}.73,265/jutpy;iy. vd;dplk; U}.6,25,000/- f;F fhBrhiyfs; bfhLj;J tpl;l nj;Jld; fzf;F Koe;Jtpl;lJ vd;W tYf;fl;lhakhf kpul;o vGjp thA;fp tpl;lhh;fs;. njw;F nilapy; Fl;oapd; Ml;fs; vd;id vA;F re;jpj;jhYk; ndp fhty; epiyak; brd;why; bjhiyj;J tpLBtd; vd;W bfhiy kpul;ly; tpLf;fpwhh;fs;. Fl;o nuh$ghisak; gz gyKk;, murpay; bry;thf;Fk;, Ms; gyKk; cs;sth; bfhq;r ehl;fSf;F Kd;g[ Buhl;oy; itj;J vd;dplk; fhty;Jiw Bky; mjpfhhpfs; vy;ByhUk; vdf;F bjhpa [k;, kPjp gzj;jpw;F g [fhh; bfhLj;jhy; cd; Bky; g [fhh; bfhLj;J F.I.R. Bghl;L rpiwapy; js;sp tpLBtd; vd;W kpul;Lfpwhh;. ehd; jw;rkak; khuilg;g [ Vw;gl;L Mg;Burd; bra;J nUf;fpBwd;. tpUJefh; khtl;l S.P jpU. kBf!;tud; mth;fsplk; kPjp gzj;jpw;F g [fhh; bra;Bjd;. vy;yh MjhuA;fisa [k; ghh;j;J tpl;L clBd gzj;ij bgw;Wj;jUk;go cj;jutpl;lhh;fs;. bjw;F fhty; epiya Ma;thsh; jpU.uhkehuhazd; mth;fs; vd;id kl;Lk; miHj;J tprhhpj;J tpl;L Fl;oia nJtiu tprhhpf;ftpy;iy. gy ehl;fshf fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F miye;J bfhz;L nUf;fpBwd;. nJehs; tiu Fl;oia fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F miHj;J tprhhpf;ftpy;iy. Bkw;go Ma;thsh; mth;fs; Fl;oia tprhuizf;F fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F miHj;jhy; tuhky; kpft [k; myl;rpak; bra;fpwhh;. Fl;oapd; Ml;fshy; ehd; ve;j BeuKk; jhf;fg;glyhk;. bfhiy kpul;ly; tpLf;fpwhh;fs;. Vd; capUf;F Mgj;J Vw;gl;lhy; Fl;ojhd; bghWg;g [. kpFe;j kd csr;rYk;, kd mGj;jKk; cs;sJ. bghUshjhu hPjpahf kpft [k; f&;lg;gl;Lf; bfhz;L nUf;fpBwd;. VdBt jat [ bra;J jhA;fspd; Bkyhd cj;juthy; vd; kPjp gzk; U}.73,625/-I bgw;Wj; jUk;go jhA;fsplk; gzpt[ld; xU rBfhjudha; Bfl;Lf; bfhs;fpBwd;.”

¶24

The allegations against the accused is that the complainant's signature was obtained in some papers under coercion as though the amounts due to him has been fully settled. Further he was threatened with dire consequence and thus he apprehends danger to his life at the hands of the proposed accused. It is further alleged that inspite of complaint given by him to the police, no action has been taken by the police and he apprehends that he may be attacked by the men of the proposed accused.

¶25

Mr.M.Sankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contends that the learned Magistrate has failed to apply his mind in as much a duty is cast on him in terms of Section 156(3) of

¶26

¶27

Cr.P.C. He would submit that a cognizable case is certainly made out for investigation.

¶28

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is no doubt true that a Magistrate cannot refer a complaint for investigating as a matter of course unless he is satisfied prima facie it discloses commission of offence. The allegations made in this case, on a careful perusal would disclose commission of offence by the proposed accused. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the request of the complainant, merely on the ground that the complainant can resort to civil remedy for recovering the balance money from the proposed accused without going to the other serious allegations made by the petitioner is not sustainable .

¶29

9.Considering the above facts, I am of the view that the matter can be remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam is directed to refer the matter to the concerned police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶30

10.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(.CO)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District

¶37

2.Do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District

¶38

3.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

¶39

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to Mr.M.Sankar, Advocate, SR.No.60251 am

¶40

RL/6c – 13/12/2013

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

Crl.R.C(MD)No.804 of 2013 04.12.2013

S.M. Rajendra Raja v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.M. Rajendra Raja v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.R.Ashokan Vs M.Savarimuthu

Krishnamoorthy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

T.Sajeetha Sheriff & 5 Others Vs a.K.M.Farook and 14 Others

A. Ramakrishnan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Gandhi Vs the Inspector of Police

Sreedharan Vs Sub Inspector of Police