A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice V. Sivagnanam dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner contending that the police did not take any action even when a case was being made out against the respondents.
The Court held that the police rightly denied the registration of the FIR since no cognizable offence was being made out. The petitioner and the respondents were residing in the same house and any such wordy quarrel has to be considered trivial.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is the complainant and the respondents are accused persons and they are husband and wife. The petitioner and the respondents are residing in a house owned by one Mr. Arokiadas. The complainant resides on the first floor and the respondents reside on the ground floor. One day, the respondents poured pesticide powder into the entire building including the pathway. Due to the irritating smell of poisonous nature, the petitioner's family suffered breathing problems. Hence, they opened all the windows and doors common to all of them. Due to this, the respondents entered the petitioner's house and abused her in filthy language and the second respondent to kill the petitioner, assaulted the petitioner with a wooden stick and attempted to kill her. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the police which did not take any action allegedly because the first respondent is a government official. Hence, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry under section 156 [3] Cr.P.C. for forwarding the complaint to the respondent to register the First Information Report and to investigate and file the final report. The learned Magistrate, after receiving the complaint under section 156[3] of Cr.P.C., called for a report from the police. The police filed a report stating that there is a dispute between the landlord and the petitioner and a case is also pending between the parties. It was further stated that the incident was not proven and only a wordy quarrel had happened. Hence, the learned Magistrate stating that the petitioner is not bonafide on her part and no cognizable offence is disclosed in the complaint dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the allegations stated in the complaint and also failed to appreciate the accident register filed by the petitioner to show the petitioner's injury and treatment particulars. He further contended that since a cognizable offence is made out, a case has to be registered and it has to be investigated further. The learned counsel also showed the CCTV footage recorded before this Court and also filed a copy of the
photo of the footage.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents submitted that the allegation raised in the complaint was a false one. He further contended that the police conducted a preliminary enquiry and reported that the petitioner has not been assaulted by the respondents. It was further contended that there is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant and the case is also pending. He further submitted that it is only a wordy quarrel and the allegations in the complaint are false and the trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no ground to interfere with the Order of the trial Court. Thus, he pleaded to dismiss the criminal revision.
Observations of the Court:
The court looked at the CCTV footage records and found no record to show any assault made by the respondents upon the petitioner. Further, the preliminary report filed by the respondent police before the trial Court was perused, in which the police on a preliminary enquiry found that the allegation of assault is false and no CCTV footage evidence was available to show that the respondents assaulted the petitioner.
The court observed that the petitioner and the respondents were residing in a rented house and the respondents were residing on the ground floor and the petitioner is residing on the first floor. Under these circumstances, a wordy quarrel has to be treated as a trivial one and no cognizable offence is made out for registering the First Information Report. Therefore, the court held that the trial Court rightly accepted the preliminary report of the police and dismissed the
complaint filed by the petitioner.
The Decision of the Court:
This Criminal Revision was dismissed.
Case Title: S. Sunganthy vs Panjanivel
Coram: Justice V. Sivagnanam
Case No.: Crl. R.C.No.1089 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. R. Kalaiyarasi
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. B. Balavijayan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :