Allowed

M. Kuppusamy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Mar 2023CRL RC/597/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding the closure of a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by a Judicial Magistrate, the High Court set aside the closure order. The Court directed the police to continue the investigation and file a final report, finding the Magistrate's decision unsustainable where investigation was pending. The revision is allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11.08.2022 in C.M.P.No.660 of 2022 set aside; respondent police directed to continue investigation and file final report.

M. Kuppusamy Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

CRL.R.C.NO.597 OF 2023

¶7

M.Kuppusamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal District. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the order of closure made in C.M.P.No.660 of 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, dated 11.08.2022, closing the petition seeking for a direction to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 24.01.2022 and set aside the same.

¶11

For Petitioner ... Mr.K.A.Mariappan For Respondent ... Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2023

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Challenging the order dated 11.08.2022 passed in

¶16

C.M.P.No.660 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,

¶17

Namakkal, this Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner.

¶18

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶19

petitioner gave a complaint to the respondent police on 06.12.2021 alleging theft of Rs.10,50,000/-, documents relating to his properties and vehicles, bank passbook of his family members and etc., which were kept in the locker, made up of iron, in his bedroom. The respondent police issued receipt in CSR No.11/2022 dated 05.01.2022. Since no steps have been taken up by the respondent police, the petitioner made a complaint dated 24.01.2022 to the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition in CMP No.660 of 2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking direction to the respondent police for registering a

¶20

case and to investigate into the same. In pursuance of the same, the learned Judge forwarded the complaint to the respondent police for investigation. The respondent police, after investigation, sent a report on

¶21

2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2023

¶23

01.07.2022 stating that they have enquired the suspected person and there are no materials available to take action against the suspected person. Under the said circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, closed the petition in CMP No.660 of 2022, on 11.08.2022, against which, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent submitted that the petitioner gave a complaint alleging theft of a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- and the documents relating to his properties and other documents, which were kept in the locker made up of iron, in his bedroom. The respondent police, on enquiry found that the allegation made by the petitioner become doubtful and that the suspected person is not involved in the crime and as such, there are no materials available to take action against the suspected person, as stated by the complainant. The respondent police already sent a report to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal in this regard. Under such circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate has closed the complaint.

¶25

3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2023

¶27

4. I have considered the matter in the light of submissions of

¶28

the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

¶29

5. On perusal of the records and the impugned order, the fact

¶30

reveals that the petitioner gave a complaint to the respondent police on 06.12.2021 alleging theft of Rs.10,50,000/-, documents relating to his properties and vehicles, bank passbook of his family members and etc., which were kept in the locker, made up of iron, in his bedroom. The respondent police issued receipt in CSR No.11/2022 dated 05.01.2022. Since no steps have been taken up by the respondent police, the petitioner made a complaint dated 24.01.2022 to the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition in CMP No.660 of 2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking direction to the respondent police for registering a case and to investigate into the same. In pursuance of the same, the learned Judge forwarded the complaint to the respondent police for investigation. The respondent police on receiving the complaint, investigated the matter and sent a report and the contents of the said report reads as follows:

¶31

4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2023

¶33

“nkw;go g[fhu;jhuhpd; nguf;FHe;ijfSf;F ghlk; brhy;ypf; bfhLf;ftUk; mdhrpd; upl;r;rp vd;w Mrpupia g[fhu;jhuu; tPl;ow;F te;J bry;fpwhu; vd;Wk; kw;wgoahUk; re;njfg;gLk; goahd egu;fs; ahUk; g[fhu;jhuu; tPl;ow;F tutpy;iy vd;Wk; Twpa[s;shu;.

¶34

,k;kD rk;ke;jkhf rk;gtaplk; brd;W tprhuiz bra;jjpy; rk;gtaplkhdJ g[fhu;jhuupd; tPlhdJ khotPl;oy; mike;Js;sJ. tPl;oy; ,uz;Lbgl;+k;fs;/ ,uz;L bgl;+kpYk; yhf;fu;fs; cs;sJ. jdpahf gPnuht[k; cs;sJ. ,t;thW ,Uf;ifapy; xUrpwpa ,Uk;g[bgl;oapy; nkw;fz;l midj;J Mtz';fSk; itj;jpUg;gjw;fhd TWk; fhuz';fs; jFe;jjhf bjupatpy;iy.

¶35

nkYk; g[fhu;jhuu; TWk; nguf;FHe;ijfSf;F ghlk; brhy;yp jutUk; mdhrpd; upl;r;rp vd;w bgz;iza[k; miHj;J neupy; tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;Lk; mtuJ eltof;ifia fz;fhzpj;J ghu;j;jjpy; ,Ue;Jk; nkw;fz;l midj;J bghUl;fSk; ml';fpa bgl;oia vLj;J

¶36

brd;wjw;fhd vt;tpjnghJkhd Mjhu';fSk; fpilf;ftpy;iy.

¶37

kDjhuh; Twpa re;njf egu;fis neupy; miHj;J tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. re;njfg;gLk; egu;fs; kPJkDjhuh; kDrk;ke;jkhf ,J bjhlh;ghf jFe;j Mjhu';fs; ,Uf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; kl;Lnk nkw;go egu;fs; kPJ rl;luPjpahd eltof;if ,aYk; vd;wtpguj;ij tprhuiz mwpf;ifahf rku;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”

¶38

5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2023

¶40

6. Since already the complaint has been forwarded and the respondent police also sent their closure report, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, ought to have directed the respondent police to continue the investigation and file final report. But in this case, the learned Magistrate, has closed the petition in C.M.P.No.660 of 2022, which is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶41

7. In the light of the above observation, the order dated 11.08.2022 passed in C.M.P.No.660 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal is set aside and the respondent police is directed to continue the investigation and file final report before the trial court. The Criminal Revision is allowed accordingly.

¶42

29.03.2023

¶43

Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order TK

¶44

6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2023

¶46

¶47

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1 Namakkal.

¶48

2.The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal District.

¶49

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104.

¶50

7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Crl.R.C.No.597 of 2023

¶52

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

¶53

¶54

CRL.R.C.NO.597 OF 2023

¶55

29.03.2023

¶56

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M. Kuppusamy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Kuppusamy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gunasekaran Vs the Btrgional Passport Officer

C.Rajamannar Vs Dayanithi

R.Latha Bai Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Ganesan Vs the State Rpe by the Inspector of Police

Nandhakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravichandran Vs the State Rep by