Madras High Court
P.Ganesan vs Prabu Baskar on 4 June, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.541 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 27.03.2025
Pronounced on : 04.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.541 of 2019
P.Ganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Prabu Baskar
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Valliyoor Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2.Nandagopal
S.P. Special Branch Police,
Valliyoor Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.Gnanasigamani
Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
Valliyoor Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
4.Rajasekaran
Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
Valliyoor Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.541 of 2019
5.Selvadoss
Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
Valliyoor Police Station,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 24.07.2019
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in Cr.M.P.No.6143 of 2017
and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Aravindan
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.6143 of 2017 dated 24.07.2019 on the file of the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, in dismissing the complaint under Section
203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that the petitioner is
running a lorry service under the name and style of GBR Lorry Services,
owning 6 lorries and he is an income tax assessee, that on 21.06.2017 at
about 11.15 a.m., lorry bearing Registration No.TN-72-Q-9777 owned by
the petitioner and driven by one Gopal had dashed against a Hero Honda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
Splender two wheeler and as a result of which, two persons travelling in
the two wheeler sustained injuries, that the lorry driver parked the lorry
there itself and ran away from that place, that the petitioner, who was in
South Valliyoor at that time, received the information about the accident
and immediately contacted the then Sub Inspector of Police, Valliyoor/first
respondent herein and informed about the accident, that the petitioner and
one Thennavan Panivalavan, who was available with him at that time,
came to the occurrence spot at about 11.35 a.m., that the Sub Inspector of
Police Prabu Baskar, S.P. Special Branch constable Nandagopal and three
Special Sub Inspector of Police Gnanasigamani, Rajasekaran and
Selvadoss/ respondents 1 to 5 herein were present at the occurrence place,
that the second respondent had taken the petitioner to separate place and
asked him to give Rs.1 lakh to close the accident case or else murder
attempt case would be lodged against him, that when the petitioner replied
that he was having necessary documents for the vehicle and his driver was
having required license and questioned their demand for bribe, the second
respondent had abused the petitioner in filthy language and slapped on his
left cheek and kicked him and as a result of which, he fell down on the
road, that when the petitioner was attempting to use his cell phone, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
second respondent had snatched the same and switched off the phone, that
the respondents 1, 4 and 5, who were nearby, have come to that place
situated opposite to a puncture shop and attacked the petitioner with
lathies, that when the petitioner attempted to run from that place, all the
respondents encircled him and attacked him discriminately, that thereafter
they had taken the petitioner in an auto to the Valliyoor Police Station and
there he was directed to remove all his clothes and he was allowed to stand
with briefs and handcuffed, that the respondents had again attacked the
petitioner with iron rods, that the petitioner's son and brother-in-law came
to the police station but they were not allowed to meet the petitioner, that
subsequently the respondents have foisted a false complaint, as if, the
petitioner had extorted Rs.100/- from one Ravi and fabricated an FIR in
Crime No.173 of 2017 and took him to the Magistrate for remand, that the
petitioner was threatened by the police not to disclose anything to the
Magistrate or else they would encounter him, that the petitioner, after
released on bail, has sent a complaint dated 24.07.2017 to the District
Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, District Collector, Tirunelveli,
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range and the Inspector
General of Police, Madurai and also to the Human Rights Commission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
requesting to take action against the police officials, that the respondents
had committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324,
341, 342, 506(2), 307, 166, 167, 193, 196 and 200 IPC and that since there
was no action taken, the petitioner was forced to file a private complaint.
3. The learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the complaint filed under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., has proceeded to conduct enquiry under Section 202
Cr.P.C. and recorded the statement of the petitioner and five other
witnesses produced by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, upon
considering the complaint, statement of the witnesses and other materials,
has passed the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 by holding that sufficient
materials are not available to proceed further against the respondents,
dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said
dismissal order, the present revision came to be filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that when a private complaint is filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the
learned Magistrate is duty bound to conduct a preliminary enquiry and if
the learned Magistrate is satisfied on the preliminary enquiry, cognizance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
should be taken on the complaint by issuing summons to the accused, that
the learned Magistrate before issuing of process should record the
evidence and consider the averments made in the complaint to find out as
to whether an offence has been made out or not, that the learned
Magistrate, despite the specific evidence given by the witnesses that the
respondents have committed offences, dismissed the complaint in a
mechanical fashion, that when the witnesses deposed corroborating the
allegations levelled in the complaint, the learned Magistrate should have
taken cognizance as the same made out a prima facie case against the
respondents, that the learned Magistrate, by giving flimsy reasons, found
fault with the evidence of the witnesses and discarded the same, that the
learned Magistrate, without considering as to whether a prima facie case
are made out or not, travelled beyond its jurisdiction and discussed
elaborately, which is not required and that therefore, the impugned order is
liable to be interfered with.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit
that since the Valliyoor police has registered a case against the petitioner
for extortion, the petitioner has filed the false complaint, as if, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
respondents had demanded Rs.1 lakh for closing the accident case and
when the same was refused, the respondents had attacked the petitioner,
that the petitioner has only chosen to produce his friends and his relatives
as witnesses, that the petitioner has not produced any iota of materials to
show the alleged occurrence or his detention in the police station, that the
learned Magistrate, considering the statement of the witnesses produced
by the petitioner, has come to a decision that the petitioner has not shown
any prima facie materials to proceed further and on that basis, dismissed
the complaint and that therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the
reasoned order passed by the learned Magistrate.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on a
decision of this Court in S.Dhananjeyan Vs. R.Mohan reported in (2007)
1 MLJ (Crl) 170, wherein, this Court has reiterated the legal position that
at the initial investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C., Magistrate has to
apply his mind only to consider whether a prima facie case existed and it
is not necessary to examine whether there was any truth in the allegation
made in the complaint and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“8. In Rashmji Kumar (Smt) v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 415) in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
following lines:
"It is fairly settled legal position that at the
time of taking cognizance of the offence, the Court
has to consider only the averments made in the
complaint or in the charge-sheet filed under Section
173, as the case may be. It was held in State of Bihar
V. Rajendra Agarwall (1996 (8) SCC 164) that it is
not open for the Court to sift or appreciate the
evidence at that stage with reference to the material
and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case
is made out for proceeding further in the matter. It is
equally settled law that it is open to the Court, before
issuing the process, to record the evidence, and on
consideration of the averments made in the complaint
and the evidence thus adduced, it is required to find
out whether an offence has been made out. On finding
that such an offence has been made out and after
taking cognizance thereof, process would be issued to
the respondent to take further steps in the matters."....
"In the case of dismissal of the complaint under
Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code, the person
accused of the offence need not be given the right of
audience in revision proceedings, challenging the
dismissal order. (Somu alias Somasundaram and 3
others V. State and another (1985 L.W (Crl.)25) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
Sivasankar V. Santhakumar (1991(1) MWN (Cr.) 265
Mad).
....
10. On a perusal of the order impugned, I find that
the learned Magistrate has over-reached and misdirected
himself. He has to find out the availability of sufficient
materials to substantiate a prima facie case but discussed
about the prospects of the case, which is not required
under law. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme
Court and this Hon'ble Court that such an exercise is
deprecated. The question at the initial stage was not
whether there was any truth in the allegation made in the
complaint but the question was whether on the basis of the
allegations prima facie case and an offence is made out.
The truth or otherwise of the allegation made in the
complaint would be examined at the time of the trial.”
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would rely on
a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State
of Maharashtra and another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44, wherein, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Magistrate before issue of process
has to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction as to whether there are grounds
for proceeding, by reading complaint as a whole, without adverting to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
defense of the accused, if any and without going into merits of the case
and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-
“11. We are, in this case, concerned only with the
question as to whether, on a reading of the complaint, a
prima facie case has been made out or not to issue process
by the Magistrate. The law as regards issuance of process
in criminal cases is well settled. At the complaint stage, the
Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made
out in the complaint and has only to prima facie satisfy
whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the
accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to
enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or
demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section
202 is extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at
this stage, is expected to examine prima facie the truth or
falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint.
Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a detailed
discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, but only
consider the inherent probabilities apparent on the
statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736, this
Court held that once the Magistrate has exercised his
discretion in forming an opinion that there is ground for
proceeding, it is not for the Higher Courts to substitute its
own discretion for that of the Magistrate. The Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
has to decide the question purely from the point of view of
the complaint, without at all adverting to any defence that
the accused may have.”
8. In the case of N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha
reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818, relied on by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed
that issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial
mind to the material before the Court to determine if there is ground for
proceedings against the accused and the relevant passage is extracted
hereunder:-
“Taking cognizance of an offence under Section
190(1) of the Cr.P.C. and issue of process under Section
204 are judicial functions and require a judicious
approach. This is a proposition not only based on sound
logic but is also based on fundamental principles of
justice, as a person against whom no offence is disclosed
cannot be put to any harassment by the issue of process.
Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of
judicial mind to the material before the court to determine
if there is ground for proceedings against the accused.
When the allegations made in the complaint are found to
be too vague and general without giving any material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
particulars of the offence alleged against the accused then
the order of the Magistrate issuing process on the basis of
the complaint would not be justified as there must be
material prima facie, for issuance of process. We have our
own doubts whether even the verification of the original
complainant on oath was recorded before taking
cognizance and issuing process.”
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the settled legal
position that at the stage of considering a complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate's role during the Section 202 Cr.P.C. inquiry is to
determine if prima facie material exists to initiate proceedings. If the
Magistrate finds insufficient material, the complaint can be dismissed
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Conversely, if prima facie material exists, the
Magistrate can issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
10. Now turning to the present case, the main contention of the
petitioner is that since the respondents had demanded Rs.1 lakh as bribe to
close the accident case, in which, the petitioner's lorry was involved and
the same was refused, the respondents had abused, attacked the petitioner
and caused criminal intimidation not only at the occurrence place but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
subsequently at the police station and also foisted the false complaint, as
if, the petitioner had extorted a sum of Rs.100/- from one Ravi.
11. It is evident from the records that the Valliyoor police registered
Crime No.173 of 2017 on June 21, 2017, against the petitioner for the
offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387, and 506(2) IPC. The case
stemmed from a complaint by Ravi, alleging that on June 21, 2017, at
8:00 a.m., the petitioner blocked his path on a two-wheeler, threatened him
for money, and forcibly took Rs.100/- from his pocket by putting a knife to
his neck.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a petition in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11184 of 2017 seeking direction against the Inspectors of
Police, Valliyoor and Panakudi police station and a writ petition in W.P.
(MD)No.19919 of 2017 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the
Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai, the Director General of
Police, Chennai and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli
District to conduct enquiry against the respondents for their act of foisting
false cases against the petitioner based on his representation dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
25.10.2017 and a learned Judge of this Court passed an interim order
dated 30.10.2017 directing to appoint an Inspector of CBCID to
investigate into the matter and the Inspector of CBCID appointed is
directed to investigate into the complaint lodged against the petitioner in
Crime No.173 of 2017 and file a report within a period of three months
from the date of his appointment for further orders. This Court, while
passing the interim order, has observed,
“4.Having regard to the nature of events and the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is improbable that a
business man like the petitioner will indulge in robbing a
sum of Rs.100/- from a stranger. Prima facie this Court is
satisfied that there must be some truth in the allegation
made by the petitioner as against the police officials. In
the circumstances indicated above, unless the
representation of the petitioner and the complaint of the
petitioner as against the police officials is enquired by an
independent agency, truth will not come out. In the above
circumstances, this Court direct the fourth respondent to
appoint an Inspector of C.B.C.I.D. to investigate into the
matter... ”
13. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel on both
sides, after transfer to the CBCID, they have registered a fresh FIR in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
Crime No.3 of 2018 on 14.05.2018 against the petitioner and after
completing the investigation, they have filed a final report against the
petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392 and
506(2) IPC and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.202 of 2021 and is
pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tirunelveli.
14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, though this Court directed the CBCID to conduct necessary
enquiry in respect of the petitioner's representation as well as the
complaint given by the petitioner as against the police officials, the
CBCID police final report has not stated anything about the complaint as
against the police officials.
15. The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner's vehicle
met with an accident on 21.06.2017.
16. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the petitioner reiterated his complaint allegations in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
statement before the Magistrate Court. Furthermore, witnesses Thennavan
Panivalavan, who accompanied the petitioner to the scene, Charles Besky,
who runs a puncture shop at the scene, and Babu, who was working on
concrete at the scene, corroborated the petitioner's version through their
statements. Additionally, the petitioner's son, Bharathiraja, and brother-in-
law, Nandakumar, testified about their visit to the police station and the
events that transpired there, supporting the petitioner's claims.
17. The Magistrate's impugned order appears to be a final judgment,
prematurely weighing witness statements and contradictions. Notably, the
Magistrate emphasized certain contradictions, observed that the petitioner
did not examine the lorry driver or the complainant in Crime No.173 of
2017, and concluded that insufficient material was produced, ultimately
dismissing the complaint.
18. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the Court's expectation for the petitioner to examine
complainant Ravi, who filed the complaint in Crime No.173 of 2017,
seems unwarranted. Given the undisputed fact of the accident involving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
the petitioner's vehicle, the necessity of the lorry driver's statement is also
questionable.
19. Based on the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the
statements of five witnesses, this Court finds that the petitioner has
established a prima facie case to proceed. While the petitioner may have
exaggerated certain aspects, this alone does not warrant dismissing the
entire complaint. Other aspects noted by the Magistrate are matters for
trial and should not be considered at this stage.
20. Given the petitioner's contention that the respondents fabricated
Crime No.173 of 2017 to deflect attention from their own wrongdoing,
trying this case alongside C.C.No.202 of 2021 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, is necessary to uncover the truth.
21. In view of the above, this Court concludes that the impugned
order dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. cannot be
sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed and the
impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6143 of 2017 by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, is hereby set aside. The learned
Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor is directed to take the case on file for the
offences that are attracted and transfer the same to the file of the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. On receipt of the records, the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli is directed to take the case on
file and issue process to all the accused and to try the said case along with
the case in C.C.No.202 of 2021 pending on the file of the said Court,
simultaneously, in accordance with law. No costs.
04.06.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Valliyoor.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Order made in
Dated : 04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:44:37 pm )
