Allowed

Sarojini, W/O.C.M.Ramasamy v. Nagaraj, Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Nov 2015CRL RC/286/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision challenged a Magistrate's order dismissing a complaint without following mandatory Section 200 Cr.P.C. procedure. The Court held that dismissal without cognizance and examination of complainant violated the Criminal Procedure Code and set aside the lower order.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruppur dated 11.02.2015 set aside and magistrate directed to restore proceeding.

Sarojini, W/O.C.M.Ramasamy Vs Nagaraj, Inspector of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.11.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.286 of 2015

¶6

Sarojini .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.Nagaraj,
Inspector of Police,
Erstwhile Tiruppur North Police Station,
Tiruppur
At Present: Asthampatti Police Station,
Salem.
2.Manikannan,
Sub Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur North Police Station,
Tiruppur.
3.Thirupathi,
Police Constable,
Tiruppur North Police Station,
Tiruppur.
4.Nirmala,
Police Constable,
Tiruppur North Police Station,
Tiruppur.
5.Ilango,
Sub-Registrar,
Tiruppur Sub-Registrar,
Tiruppur.
6.Ragothaman, (Trainee)
Sub-Registrar,
Tiruppur Sub-REgistrar,
Tiruppur.
7.Deivathal
8.Visalatchi
9.Radhakrishnan .. Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the rejection order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruppur passed in C.M.P.C.F.R.No.9179 of 2014 dated 11.02.2015 in respect of the petitioner's complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and pleased to direct learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruppur to restore and proceed further.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabakar

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) [R1 to R6] Mr.N.Chinnaraj [R8] Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam - Amicus curiae O R D E R

¶12

This revision challenges the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruppur passed in C.M.P.C.F.R.No.9179 of 2014 on 11.02.2015.

¶13

2.Though notice earlier stands issued to respondents and most of them have entered appearance, this Court finds that notice to respondents is not necessary in this case.

¶14

The complaint of the petitioner has been dismissed under orders dated 11.02.2015 with the following observation:

¶15

“Petitioner present. Heard. On perusing the case records and the complaint, no primafacie criminal offence is made out. The transaction is purely civil in nature. Hence, the complaint is rejected.”

¶16

The learned Magistrate, without taking the complaint on file under Section 200 Cr.P.C and examining the complainant, has passed the order stating that the matter is civil in nature. It is only after taking the complaint on file and following the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code, that the Magistrate can enter upon a finding of dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The order of Court below is a flagrant violation of the law prescribed.

¶17

Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned counsel assists the Court by informing that Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. requires that no order under such Section (i.e. exercise of revisional powers) be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by

¶18

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

¶19

pleader in his own defence.

¶20

Requiring the Court below to act in accordance with law prescribed towards satisfying itself as to whether a case calling for cognizance by it is made out or not cannot be seen as prejudicial to the persons accused as the decision of whether cognizance is to be taken on the complaint lies with the Magistrate.

¶21

For the said reason, this revision is allowed and judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruppur passed in C.M.P.C.F.R.No.9179 of 2014 on 11.02.2015 shall stand set aside.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsm
To
1.The V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. do Thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Prabhakar, Advocate, sr.63626
+1 cc to Mr.N.Chinnaraj, Advocate, sr.63847
Crl.R.C.No.286 of 2015
kgk co
kra 03.02.2016

¶23

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

Sarojini, W/O.C.M.Ramasamy v. Nagaraj, Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojini, W/O.C.M.Ramasamy v. Nagaraj, 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.Ponnusamy Vs Sundaresan

M.Pechiyammal Vs M.R.Manjula

R.Arivazhakan Vs P.Kandasamy

K.S.Rajendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ramamurthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.M.R.Muralikrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police