Madras High Court
V.Somasundaram vs Dr.L.Subramanian on 19 September, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.793 of 2022
V.Somasundaram .. Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
Dr.L.Subramanian .. Respondent/Accused
Prayer:- Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 04.04.2022
passed in Cr.M.P.No.7874 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
IV, Thoothukudi and allow the Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
The revision made against the order of dismissal that has been
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi, in
Crl.MP.No.7874 of 2021, dated 04.04.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the Court
under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondent with the following
allegations:-
The respondent filed a criminal complaint on 13.11.2022 against
the petitioner and two others before the District Crime Branch,
Thoothukudi. Upon the above said complaint, a case was registered in
Crime No.15 of 2022 under Sections 120(B), 467, 468, 470, 419 and 420
of IPC. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody and later,
after 7 days, he was released on bail. Final report was filed before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, and the same was taken
on file in C.C.No.324 of 2004. During the course of trial, it was found
that charges against the petitioner and others was not proved. So they
were acquitted.
3.So, knowingly, a false complaint has been given by the
respondent for the purpose of harassing the petitioner and his family
members. The petitioner was in custody for more than 7 days. Because of
the trial process, he underwent mental and physical ailment. With these
allegations he has filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi, seeking punishment for the offence
punishable under Section 211 of I.P.C. The trial Court has recorded the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statement of the complainant and further, perusing the records, dismissed
the complaint on the ground that the judgment of acquittal was rendered
in C.C.No.324 of 2004 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts; It was not stated in the
judgment that the complaint is a false one; For invoking the offence
under Section 211 IPC, the petitioner has not examined any other
witnesses; After a lapse of 9 years, the present complaint has been filed
and no prima facie material has been placed before the Court for
proceeding against the respondent. The above said order has been
challenged by way of this revision.
4.In spite of repeated adjournments, there was no representation,
for the petitioner. To make out a case under Section 211 IPC, the
petitioner ought to have follow the proper procedure set out under
Section 195 Cr.P.C. Section 195 (b) (1) reads as under:-
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, for offences against public justice and for
offences relating to documents given in evidence –
(1) No Court shall take cognizance—
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to
188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the
following section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both
inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or
punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the
said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed
in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to
commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause
(i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that
Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate”
5.As per the above said provision offence under Section 211 IPC
will lie only upon the complaint given by the concerned Court or Officer
as the case may be. So, the cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate
on the basis of the private complaint is barred. More over, the petitioner
has not adopted the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Even though,
the trial Court has not concentrated on this point, the very filing of the
private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 211 IPC is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
barred under law since it is a non cognizable offence and that too,
proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C was not followed. So, on that
ground, the revision fails.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
19.09.2022
Internet :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dss
To
The Judicial Magistrate IV,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN ,J.
dss
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.793 of 2022
19.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
