Jacqueline Kala vs Sisily Joy
2022 Latest Caselaw 17240 Mad

                                                                       Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 03.11.2022

                                                   CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                         CRL.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018

                                                      and

                                         CRL.M.P.(MD)No.7330 of 2018


                     1.Jacqueline Kala

                     2.K. Vijayaraj

                     3.Selvaraj                              ...Petitioners /Accused 2 to 4

                                                       Vs.
                     Sisily Joy                           ... Respondent/Complainant


                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

                     to call for the records in C.C.No.1 of 2018 on the Judicial Magistrate

                     No.II, Kuzhithurai and quash the same.



                                  For Petitioner    : Mr.M.P.Senthil

                                  For Respondent   : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan

                     1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                       Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018



                                                      ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioners/A2 to 4 to

quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court

No.II, Kuzhithurai, in C.C.No.1 of 2018.

2. The respondent gave a police complaint before the

Nithiravilai Police Station on 07.08.2015 to the effect that the petitioners/

accused persons tress-passed into the property belonging to the

respondents on 06.08.2015 at about 12.30 p.m. and they damaged the

compound wall and demolished the same and when the respondent

attempted to interfere with the same, he was abused in filthy language

and was threatened with dire consequences. Even thereafter, the accused

persons tress-passed into the property and damaged the remaining

compound wall also.

3. Based on the above complaint, the Police registered an

FIR in Crime No.331 of 2015, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 427,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018

447, 294B, 506(ii) IPC as against three accused persons. The

investigation was taken up and ultimately, a referred charge sheet was

filed before the Court below and the same was taken on file in R.C.No.85

of 2016 and the case was closed.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent

based on the very same allegations, filed a private complaint before the

Court below and the Court below straight-away proceeded to issue

summons against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present

petition has been filed before this Court.

5. Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

6. It is clear from the records that there are suits pending

between the parties and it is not necessary for this Court to go into the

inter se rights in the property as between the contesting parties. This

Court must only see whether the Court below was right in straight-away

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018

issuing summons inspite of being aware of the fact that the earlier police

complaint came to an end through a referred charge sheet.

7. When the police after investigation filed a referred charge

sheet and the defacto complainant filed a private complaint on the very

same facts, it is left open to the learned Magistrate to treat it as a protest

petition and proceed further to issue process. It is also possible for the

Court below to treat the complaint as a private complaint. However,

before the process is issued under Section 204 of Cr.P.C, it is the duty of

the Magistrate to apply his mind on the closure report as well as the

statements that were recorded by the police. The law on this issue was

discussed by this Court in Narayanamma and Others Vs. Chikka

Venkateshaiah reported in 2019 (2) LW (Crl) 522. This position of law

has also been followed in the latest judgment in Alaguthangamani and

Others Vs. Saravanan reported in 2022 (4) MLJ (Crl) 156.

8. In the present case, admittedly there was an earlier police

complaint which resulted in filing a referred charge sheet. The Court

below did not apply its mind on the closure report filed by the police and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018

the statements recorded and filed along with the closure report. Hence,

the very cognizance taken by the Court below suffers from non-

application of mind and the same is liable to be interfered by this court.

9. In view of this illegality, the continuation of the criminal

proceedings as against the petitioners will clearly amount to abuse of

process of Court, which requires the interference of this Court in exercise

of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. In the result, the proceedings C.C.No.1 of 2018, on the

Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Kuzhithurai, is hereby quashed in its

entirety and this Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.11.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Kuzhithurai,

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rm

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.16569 of 2018

03.11.2022

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