Held that the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate No.V, Salem, was correct as there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents. The criminal revision case filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
Criminal Revision Petition No.109 of 2015
N.Krishnamoorthy .. Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to set aide the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem, in C.M.P.No.4774 of 2013, dated 04.02.2010.
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Hemalatha
O R D E R
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, filed under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., the present revision case is filed.
2
respondent has constructed a house, adjacent to his house, she did not obtain any prior permission from Salem Municipal Corporation and in that process, his house was damaged. When he questioned the same, she was not bothered. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.980 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court-II, Salem, claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/-, towards damage of the building. Coming to know of the said fact, the 1st respondent, with the help of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Salem, 2nd respondent herein, has lodged a complaint with Ammapet Police Station. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, used to call him, on so many occasions and insisted him to compromise the matter amicably, with the 1st respondent, otherwise, the 2nd respondent would foist a false case against him. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has approached the learned District and Sessions Judge and obtained an anticipatory bail. He was to sign before the Cyber Crime, Salem. Whenever, the petitioner appeared on the said police station, he was insisted to withdraw the suit and also threatened that another case would be registered against him. In the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a private
3
complaint, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem, against the respondents herein, for the offences, under Sections 120(B), 211, 219, 220 and 506(I) IPC. Without considering the statements of the petitioner, witness, Sankar and other relevant records, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem , has rejected the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
4
documents, the learned Magistrate, while framing a question, as to whether, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, to proceed against the respondents, has observed that the complainant is an Advocate. The main allegation made in the complaint is that the 2nd respondent had exerted pressure, on the petitioner, to withdraw the suit
in O.S.No.980 of 2011, filed by him, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court-II, Salem, against his adjacent owner, viz., 1st respondent. A suit has been filed for damages against her.
5
one Mr.Arumugam, was initially cited as witness, in the complaint to support the contention that the Jeep driver of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Salem, 2nd respondent herein, had asked him, as to whether, the petitioner had arrived at a compromise or not. Lateron, the petitioner had examined one Mr.Sankar, as Witness No.2. The Court below has also raised a question, as to why, the petitioner has not examined the said Arumugam, instead of examining Shankar. At this juncture, it should be noticed that Shankar, the witness examined, was not the person, named in the complaint. Some other person, Arumugam, has been examined as PW.2.
6
10.00 P.M., when he went to the Police Station, the 2nd respondent asked him, as to whether, instead of appearing before the Police Station, for affixing the signature, the petitioner would compromise the matter and further submitted that he had recorded the conversation in the Compact Disc, he has not produced any disk, before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
10. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal reported in
7
AIR 1972 SC 2639 : (1973) 3 SCC 753, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requires examination of the complainant and the witnesses, to find out, whether, there is prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complainant and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person.
8
consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in-his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding, 'he may dismiss the complaint.
no ground to proceed against the persons accused of committing offence and hence, the Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint, under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not warrant any
9
interference.
No costs.
25.02.2015
Index: Yes Internet: Yes skm
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
skm
10
Criminal Revision Case No.109 of 2015
25.02.2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. warrants interference.
Whether the learned Magistrate incorrectly dismissed the complaint without sufficient grounds.
Whether the appellant is entitled to edit the order of the Magistrate Sessions Judge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West BengalExplained¶36
Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1972 SC 2639 : (1973) 3 SCC 753 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Krishnamoorthy
Salapuri
Venkatesan
S. Manikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. Manikumar
Parties & counsel
