Madras High Court
R.Manikandan vs Thangapazham on 4 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.774 of 2021
R.Manikandan ... Petitioner/
Petitioner
Vs.
1.Thangapazham
2. Thangapazhams Car Driver
(Name not known)
3. Saravanan
4. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Puliyangudi Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
(R4 impleaded as per order of this Court dated
16.03.2022 in Crl.M.P(MD)No.3496 of 2022
in Crl.O.P(MD)No.774 of 2021) ... Respondents/
Accused
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tirunelveli District, dated
12.02.2021 and to set aside the same and consequently, to direct the Inspector of
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
Police Puliyangudi Police Station, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, to register
F.I.R on the complaint given by the petitioner in C.S.R No.269 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu
for R.1 to R.3
Mrs.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)for R.4
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tirunelveli District, dated 12.02.2021
and to direct the Inspector of Police Puliyangudi Police Station, Sivagiri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District, to register F.I.R on the complaint given by the petitioner in
C.S.R No.269 of 2018.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2018, at about 09.30 p.m
while the petitioner was unloading the sand at Vasudevanallur Rajendran Petrol
Bulk from a lorry, the lorry driver without knowing that the vacant site belongs to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
the first accused parked the lorry. On knowing this, the petitioner told the lorry
driver to remove the lorry from the vacant site. Soon after, the first accused came
to the spot in the car bearing Registration No.TN-76-2727 along with his car
driver, the second accused and one, Saravanan / the third accused. The first
accused spelt obscene words towards the petitioner and the second accused
obstructed the petitioner by holding his hands and the first accused slapped the
petitioner on his face and the third accused beaten the petitioner with a stick.
Immediately, the petitioner was admitted to the Government Hospital,
Rajapalayam and the same was duly intimated to the fourth respondent herein.
However, the fourth respondent recording the statement of the petitioner had
closed the complaint as ‘mistake of fact’. Therefore, the petitioner filed a
complaint for direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petition was filed
seeking for direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, whereas, the learned
Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri conducted the trial
and dismiss the complaint as if it was filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Further
submitted that on specific allegation and also specific overtact against each of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
accused, the learned Magistrate ought to have issued a direction for the police to
register the case for investigation. He also relied upon the Accident Register
which was marked as P.2 issued by the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam. In
support of this, he also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgment reported in Criminal Appeal No.1158 of 2010. In which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid that it has to be seen that whether or no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The learned Magistrate finds that the evidence
ridiculously as if the Magistrate Court is that of the trial Court. The trial to be
conducted by the Magistrate is not same which is to be kept in view at the stage
of criminal charges. Further it is seen that where there was prima facie evidence
and even though the present charge levelled in the complaint might have
defensive in nature, the matter has to be left to decided by an appropriate forum at
the appropriate stage.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3
submitted that there is absolutely no bar for the learned Magistrate to conduct an
enquiry on the complaint seeking direction under Section 163(3) Cr.P.C. Police
officer found that the complaint lodged by the petitioner is a false one and closed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
the same as 'mistake of fact'. The learned Magistrate can very well conduct the
enquiry and witnesses in support of the prosecution case. Accordingly, the
learned Magistrate enquired and recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 on the side
of the complainant marked as Exs.P.1 to P.6.
5. Perused of all witness materials produced by the petitioner, the learned
Magistrate can see that there is no prima facie case made out as against the
respondents 1 to 3 and dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C in support
of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of [2021] 0
Supreme(Mad) 1332, in which, in (1972) 3 SCC 414 and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court laid that the learned Magistrate has proceed as if it is purely civil in nature
and dismiss the same.
6. Further, laid that order of dismissal of Section 203 Cr.P.C has to be made
on judicial, it can be only be made whether reasons given discloses that the
proceedings cannot be terminated successfully in conviction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
7. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the petitioner revealed that the
petitioner was attacked by the respondents 1 to 3 herein on 26.05.2018. Though
the petitioner stated that the petitioner’s statement was recorded in the
Government Hospital at Rajapalayam and the fourth respondent failed to register
any FIR and closed the complaint as 'mistake of fact'. The petitioner's evidence
would show that the statement was recorded by the fourth respondent and closed
as 'mistake of fact'.
8. Further the petitioner has not executed the P.W.1 and 2 issued by the
Medical officer, Government Hospital, Rajapalayam and the Accident Register
dated 26.01.2018, where as the alleged occurrence was took place on 26.05.2018
at about 09.30.p.m.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produce the cases registered as
against the petitioner is as follows:-
1) Puliyangudi PS Cr.No.25 of 2007 under Sections 294(B), 324 IPC-ACQ
2) Puliyangudi PS Cr.No.126 of 2012 under Section 107 Cr.P.C-AD
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
3) Puliyangudi PS Cr.No.416 of 2015 under Sections 294(B), 506(ii) IPC and
3(1)(x) SC/ST Act – ACQ
4) Puliyangudi PS Cr.No.291 of 2016 under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and
3 of TNPPDL Act r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act-ACQ
5) Puliyangudi PS Cr.No.191 of 2018 under Sections 294(b), 323 and
506(i) IPC-PT
6) Puliyangudi PS Cr.No.364 of 2019 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324,
341 and 506(ii) IPC-MF
7) Puliyangudi PS Cr.No.442 of 2020 under Sections 294(b), 323, 341
and 506(ii) IPC-MF
8) Vasudevanallur pS-Cr.No.23 of 2021 under Sections 294(b), 307, 324
and 506(ii)IPC-NTF
10. In pursuant to the cases registered against the petitioner, the petitioner
was retained as 'Gundas' under Act 14. Subsequently, it was set aside by this
Court. However, the petitioner filed the complaint only to escape from the
clutches of law and as such, the learned Magistrate had rightly rejected the
complaint as no prima facie is made out. That apart the learned Magistrate has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
enquire the complaint even filed for direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Even
according to the petitioner, after recording the statement of Accident Register, the
fourth respondent failed to register the case. Therefore, any direction issued by
the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C no purpose will be served.
Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly conducted the enquiry and examine P.W.
1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and concluded that it is not the fit case to take
cognizance as against the accused persons and dismiss the complaint under
Section 203 Cr.P.C. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the
Court below. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
04.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mga
To:-
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Sivagiri,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Puliyangudi Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.774 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J
mga
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.774 of 2021
04.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
