Allowed

S.Suresh v. the State Rep by

Madras HC15 Mar 2024CRL RC/417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a criminal revision petition and set aside the Magistrate's order dismissing a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. petition. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the police with evidence before the complaint is formally rejected, instructing the police to follow Section 154 Cr.P.C. procedures.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 14.02.2024 in C.M.P.No.499 of 2024. Direct petitioner to appear before police with evidence. Police directed to follow Section 154 Cr.P.C. procedure.

S.Suresh Vs the State Rep by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.417 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.417 of 2024

¶7

S.Suresh ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State by The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶10

2.Kamlesh

¶11

3.Kiyaram ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholingur, dated 14.02.2024 in C.M.P.No.499 of 2024 and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sairam For R1 : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1 of 6

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.417 of 2024

¶17

The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur in C.M.P.No.499 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order, dated 14.02.2024 primarily on the ground that the petitioner not provided any proof to support claim of personally submitting the report to the respondent Police and also not adhered to the procedure outlined in Section 154 Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a business in the name of Mathaji Jewellers dealing with gold and silver articles at No.202, Gandhi Road, Sholinghur, Ranipet District. The petitioner had business dispute with the respondents 2 and 3. On 30.12.2023, at about 01.30 p.m., the respondents 2 and 3 along with the muscle men entered into the petitioner's jewellery shop and threatened the petitioner as well as staffs and took away 15 kgs of silver articles and 200 grams of gold jewels. Further, the petitioner was threatened that if he discloses the fact to anyone, he would be done away. The muscle men are local persons and powerful having

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 6

¶20

Crl.R.C.No.417 of 2024

¶21

high connection. The petitioner fearing for his life could not lodge a complaint to the local Police/1^st respondent Police. Hence, the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, Arakkonam and lodged the complaint, dated 04.01.2024 giving reason why he could not approach the jurisdictional Police. In the complaint, the petitioner informed the Superintendent of Police and produced CCTV footage recorded in the shop would clearly show the named persons in the complaint along with muscle men entering into the shop, taking away the jewels by force and threatening the petitioner and his staffs. The Superintendent of Police, Arakkonam informed the petitioner to send a complaint to the 1^st respondent Police. On 09.01.2024, the petitioner sent a complaint through the registered post to the 1^st respondent Police and the same was received on 11.01.2024. Since no action taken, the petitioner again met the Superintendent Police. Arakkonam and informed about no action of the 1^st respondent Police. Then to, no action taken. Having no other option, the petitioner approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur and filed the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶22

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent Police on instructions submitted that on the complaint of the

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 6

¶24

Crl.R.C.No.417 of 2024

¶25

petitioner, enquiry conducted and the same is still pending. It is found that there is a business transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner appeared before the 1^st respondent Police on 04.01.2024, thereafter, he sought two days time to produce some documents and materials

¶26

in support of his complaint. Then he failed to appear before the 1^st respondent Police, but he rushed to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sholinghur and obtained the order of dismissal. He further submitted that the enquiry is still pending and if the petitioner possess any material in support of his complaint, the petitioner can appear before the 1^st respondent Police and produce the same.

¶27

4.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will appear before the 1^st respondent Police after receipt of the copy of this order and give explanation and produce materials available with him.

¶28

5.Considering the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner to appear before the 1^st respondent Police on receipt of the copy of this order. The 1^st respondent Police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if cognizable offence is

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 6

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.417 of 2024

¶31

made out on the complaint of the petitioner. In the event of the 1^st respondent not inclined to proceed with the complaint, the same to be informed to the petitioner with reasons. Thereafter, it is for the petitioner to approach higher officials and if no action taken, the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur once again if he so desires and to file appropriate petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur to consider the contention of the petition on its own merits and pass appropriate orders.

¶32

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 14.02.2024 in C.M.P.No.499 of 2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur.

¶33

15.03.2024

¶34

Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes Neutral Citation: Yes/No vv2 To

¶35

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sholingur.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 6

¶37

Crl.R.C.No.417 of 2024

¶38

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶39

vv2

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶41

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶42

Crl.R.C.No.417 of 2024

¶43

15.03.2024

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 6

S.Suresh v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suresh v. the State Rep by

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

Nagajothi.S Vs the Director General of Police

R.Kanimozhi Vs T.Selvaraj

State Bank of India Vs M/S.Romega Foam P Ltd.

Godwin Moses @ Gadis Vs The State rep by its

P.Selvakumar Vs State Rep.by

Venkatachalam Vs the Inspector of Police