Madras High Court
M.Edwin Christopher vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 9 September, 2022
Crl.RC.No.1288 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.1288 of 2022
M.Edwin Christopher ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Guduvancherry Range
Police Commissionerate Office Tambaram
2. The Inspector of Police
S14, Peerkankaranai Police Station
Chengalpet District ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram-I in Crl.M.P.No.6124 of 2022 dated
23.08.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1288 of 2022
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram in
Crl.M.P.No.6124 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022.
2. The case of the revision petitioner is that he had filed a complaint
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I,
Tambaram and the same was taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.6124 of 2022 and
that the learned Magistrate, dismissed the same by order dated 23.08.2022,
by giving a finding that the revision petitioner has not approached the police
under Section 154(1) and also not approached the Superior Officer under
Section 154(3) and he has straight away invoked Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate also referred a Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.781 of 2012 dated
19.03.2015.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the findings of
the learned Magistrate is perverse since, the petitioner had already referred a
complaint given to the jurisdictional Police under Sections 154(1) Cr.P.C.
and also to the Superior Officer who is the Assistant Commissioner of
Polcie/the 1st respondent herein under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. Further, he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1288 of 2022
also referred the report filed by the police which would clearly show that the
revision petitioner had approached the police by invoking Section 154(1)
Cr.P.C. and the Police Authority under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. The learned
Magistrate failed to consider the same and without applying his mind,
straight away referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating as
if the, the revision petitioner had not invoked the Sections 154(1) and
154(3) Cr.P.C. before invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate,
which warrants interference.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents police would submit that already one Ramachandran and
Vichitra had lodged a complaint regarding land dispute in which, the
petitioner was arrayed as an accused and in order to get over from the same,
he has approached Magistrate by filing a complaint under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. by suppressing the above said facts since both the jurisdictional
police is entirely difference. Hence, the revision petition has to be
dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1288 of 2022
6. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has filed a complaint before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the
revision petitioner without approaching the police and the Superior Officer
by invoking Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. and 154(3) Cr.P.C. as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred supra, has approached the
Magistrate straight way by invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
7. A perusal of the complaint filed by the revision petitioner before the
Magistrate under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the list of documents annexed
with that, clearly shows that the revision petitioner had already filed a
complaint before the Police/the second respondent herein by invoking
Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, since they had not taken any action, he
has sent a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police/the 1st
respondent herein by invoking Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and after exhausting
all the remedies, since he could not get any proper response from the
respondents 1 and 2, he has filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate
by invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the findings of the Magistrate
is perverse.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1288 of 2022
8. Hence, the order dated 23.08.2022, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, in Crl.M.P.No.6124 of 2022, is set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.
9. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram is directed to extent
sufficient opportunities to both the parties and pass a fresh order in
accordance with law and this exercise shall be completed within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Corder.
10. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision case is allowed.
09.09.2022
ksa-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1288 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
Ksa-2
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Guduvancherry Range
Police Commissionerate Office Tambaram
3. The Inspector of Police
S14, Peerkankaranai Police Station
Chengalpet District
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Criminal Revision Case No.1288 of 2022
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
