Madras High Court
B.Mohamed Kalibullah vs P.S.Sharfudeen on 13 November, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10937 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10937 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6907 of 2022
1.B.Mohamed Kalibullah
2.Mohamed Asik ... Petitioners/
Accused 1 & 2
Vs.
P.S.Sharfudeen ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.
216 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Dindigul and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah
For Respondent : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10937 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.216 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3.The respondent gave a complaint against the petitioner
which was taken on file by the Town South Police, Dindigul in Crime
No.468 of 2015 for alleged offences under Sections 447 and 506(i) of
IPC. After investigation, a closure report was filed as mistake of fact
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul. The respondent
filed a protest petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate decided to deal
with the protest petition as a private complaint and took cognizance of
the same for offence under Section 506(i) of IPC through order dated
18.10.2016 as against A1 and A2 and dismissed the complaint insofar as
A3 and A4 are concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the present quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10937 of 2022
petition has been filed by A1 and A2.
4.It is not in dispute that initially the case was investigated
by the police in Crime No.468 of 2015 and a referred charge sheet was
filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, as mistake
of fact. It is now too well settled that the learned Magistrate can act upon
the protest petition and issue process to the accused persons or can order
for further investigation or can treat it as a private complaint and proceed
further.
5.The learned Judicial Magistrate decided to treat the protest
petition as a private complaint. At the time of taking cognizance of the
same, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have applied his mind on
the closure report filed by the police and the materials that were collected
by the police while filing the closure report. If the learned Judicial
Magistrate has not applied his mind on those materials, the very taking of
cognizance of the private complaint becomes unsustainable. Useful
reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Narayanamma &
Others. Vs. Chikka Venkateshaiah, reported in 2019 (2) L.W. (Crl.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10937 of 2022
522. Reference can also made to the judgment in Alaguthangamani v.
Saravanan, reported in 2022 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 156.
6.This Court had held that when a protest petition is
converted into a complaint, the Court has to necessarily apply its mind on
the closure report and the statements recorded by the police which forms
part of the closure report.
7.The cognizance order passed by the Court below does not
reflect any application of mind on the closure report filed by the police
and the materials that were filed along with the closure report.
8.In view of the same, this Court has to necessarily interfere
with the cognizance order passed by the Court below and accordingly the
same is set aside.
9.The matter is remitted back to the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul. The learned Judicial Magistrate
shall apply his mind on the closure report and the materials collected by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10937 of 2022
the police and which forms part of the closure report and also the
grounds taken by the respondent in the protest petition which has now
been treated as a private complaint and thereafter, pass an order. This
process shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
10.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10937 of 2022
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PKN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10937 of 2022
Dated: 13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
