Mrs.Priscilla Grace Rose vs The Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 16939 Mad

                                                                          Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2021

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 18.08.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                       Criminal Revision Case No.494 of 2021


                      Mrs.Priscilla Grace Rose
                      Represented by its Power of Attorney
                      P.B.Sugumar                                              ... Petitioner

                                                        ..vs..
                      The Inspector of Police,
                      W-35 All Women Police Station,
                      Tambaram,
                      Chennai – 600 045.                                       ... Respondent

                            Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401
                      Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the order dated 26.07.2021 in
                      C.M.P.No.1212 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
                      Tambaram and set aside the same and allow the Criminal Revision Case.


                            For Petitioner     :     Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
                                                     for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi

                            For Respondent     :     Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                     Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                      Page No.1/6


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                              Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2021

                                                   ORDER

By consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up today, for

final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against order

dated 26.07.2021 passed in C.M.P.No.1212 of 2021 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.

3.It is the case of the petitioner that she sent a complaint dated

13.02.2021, through her Power of Attorney to the respondent police

with regard to demand of dowry, criminal assault, mental-cum-physical

cruelty against the named person viz., Aravind Prasad Dayal, which was

kept in abeyance. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tambaram

seeking for a direction to the respondent police to register the FIR based

on her complaint dated 13.02.2021.The learned Magistrate, without

considering the sum and substance of the complaint dismissed the

petition. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

Page No.2/6

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2021

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that a part of cause of action had arisen in India and on account of

the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 324 and 307 IPC, the Court

below without considering the fact that no previous sanction would be

required from the Central Government in terms of the Proviso to Section

188 Cr.P.C has wrongly dismissed the petition. In support of his

contention the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra

Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Another reported in 2011(9)

SCC 527. He would further submit that the sanction of Central

Government is necessary at the time of taking cognizance, but, not at the

stage of registering case and investigation.

5.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and

also perused the materials available on record.

Page No.3/6

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2021

6. On a careful perusal of the records, it reveals that the part of the

cause action had arisen in India on account of the alleged offences under

Sections 498(A), 324 and 307 IPC.

7.Considering the averments made in complaint, the order passed

by the learned Magistrate is perverse. At the time of registration of the

case and investigation, the allegation levelled in the complaint only has to

be taken into consideration. However, in the present case, the respondent

police failed to register the case and initiated proceedings and thereafter,

the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate by invoking Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate also failed to consider the

averments made in the complaint that part of cause of action arose within

the jurisdiction of the respondent police and simply dismissed the

complaint, which is perverse.

8.In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the order dated

26.07.2021 passed in C.M.P.No.1212 of 2021 by the learned Judicial

Page No.4/6

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2021

Magistrate No.I, Tambaram is set aside. The respondent police is directed

to register the case based on the complaint given by the petitioner and

investigate the matter in accordance with law.

9.With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is

disposed of.

18.08.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ms

Page No.5/6

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2021

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.

2.The Inspector of Police, W-35 All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2021

18.08.2021

Page No.6/6

http://www.judis.nic.in