Judgment : This revision, filed under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1988 on 5. 1988, dismissing the same, which was preferred, challenging the correctness and legality of the order passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in refusing to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner herein, against the respondent, filed under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, for the alleged offence punishable under Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short facts, which are necessary to appreciate and dispose this revision, as gathered from the impugned judgment and the case records are stated as follows: The revision petitioner had filed a suit O.S.No. 7671 of 1985 for some civil reliefs on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, which came up for trial on 12. 1987 in which, applications were also heard. During the arguments, the respondent herein, who is the counsel for the defendant in the said civil proceedings is alleged to have abused the revision petitioner in the open court and in the presence of the learned IV Assistant Judge and hit him on the left side of his head over the left ear. According to the petitioner, the said action of the respondent had caused physical and mental agony, pain and dishonour and so much of anguish to the petitioner. Besides, his activities had also caused interruption, insult and annoyance to the learned Presiding Judge as well as the proceedings. Accordingly, the trial Judge was requested to take action. Besides, the police officials of the Esplanade Police Station though-approached they refused to register any case upon the complaint of the revision petitioner herein. He was admitted in the Government Hospital and consequently, underwent treatment as an inpatient since his blood pressure exceeded the limit. Then he got discharged against the medical advice but however, continued his treatment in a private nursing home. Even on 211. 1987, prior to the actual occurrence, there was abuses prostrated against the revision petitioner herein. Therefore, according to the petitioner, learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, should have suo motu taken cognizance of an offence and consequently, preferred a complaint in writing to the concerned criminal court. Even on 211. 1987, prior to the actual occurrence, there was abuses prostrated against the revision petitioner herein. Therefore, according to the petitioner, learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, should have suo motu taken cognizance of an offence and consequently, preferred a complaint in writing to the concerned criminal court. Since he has not done so, the revision petitioner filed an application before the trial court praying for taking action against the respondent herein as contemplated under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but however, the same was returned. Under the circumstances by virtue of Sec.341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner praying for setting aside the order of refusal passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. 3. Upon the above facts, learned Principal Sessions Judge has framed the following point for consideration: Whether an enquiry has to be conducted as prayed for? By framing the above point and taking into consideration of the same, the lower appellate court, it appears, was not satisfied that the very non-action of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, did not attract Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, held that the inaction of the trial judge in not preferring any complaint against the respondent is correct and that accordingly, while holding so, dismissed the appeal, by passing the impugned judgment. Aggrieved at this, the appellant, namely the revision petitioner herein, has come forward with this revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment. 4. Aggrieved at this, the appellant, namely the revision petitioner herein, has come forward with this revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment. 4. Mr.K. Mathews, the petitioner as party-in-person while canvassing the grounds of revision, drew my attention to Sec.341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which assumes every significance in this case, to be considered regarding the appeal, which reads as follows: “(1) Any person on whose application any court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under Sub-sec.(1) or Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such court, may appeal to the court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.195, and the superior court may, thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former court might have made under Sec.340, and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly (2) An order under this section, and subject to any such order, an order under Sec.340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision”. While relying on the above section of law, the petitioner drew my attention also to Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows: “Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceedings, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” While pointing out the above sections of law, petitioner would contend that the facts alleged in this case clearly attracts Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code and that therefore, the learned trial Judge ought to have himself conducted the enquiry by entertaining his complaint even after it was filed praying for taking action against the respondent for his alleged insult and annoyance caused to the public servant, the Presiding Officer, who presided over the proceedings on 12. 1987 in the IV Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Madras. Instead, the refusal to take any action and entertain his complaint by the trial Judge itself is not correct. 1987 in the IV Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Madras. Instead, the refusal to take any action and entertain his complaint by the trial Judge itself is not correct. So much so the appeal preferred by him under Sec.341, Crl.P.C. was also rejected by the lower appellate court on the erroneous approach and that as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside for lack of proper appreciation of the law and facts in this case. 5. Mr.I. Mahaboob Sheriff, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, resisted the revision, only on the ground that since both courts below refused to accede to the request of the revision petitioner, by passing an order, which reached its finality and that in the said context, the said order shall not be subject once again to the present revision, as clearly held in Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.341, Crl.P.C. is a clear bar for entertaining this revision and as such, the present revision is to be rejected. This contention was repudiated by the revision petitioner. 6. In the light of the above rival contentions on the question of law, I have proposed to deal with the same at the first instance. 7. In Lalit Mohan v. Benoyendra Nath, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 785: 1982 Crl.L.J. 625: 1982 M.L.J. (Crl.) 329(2): 1982 A.P.L.J. (S.C.). 16: (1982)1 S.C.J. 192(1): (1982)3 S.C.C 219 , the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "Although against an order passed in appeal under Sec.342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order would not be revisable by the High Court under Sec.397(2), but High Court is entitled to examine the matter under Sec.482 which expressly overrules the bar contained in Sec.341 of the Code. Mere indication by High Court that this is not a fit case for invoking the inherent power under Sec.482, is not sufficient. The High Court must be itself satisfied whether the order directing complaint to be filed is expedient in the interest of justice, so as to attract its inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code". .8. Mere indication by High Court that this is not a fit case for invoking the inherent power under Sec.482, is not sufficient. The High Court must be itself satisfied whether the order directing complaint to be filed is expedient in the interest of justice, so as to attract its inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code". .8. A learned single Judge of the Patna High Court in Ram Lal Rusiyan v. Sathyanarayan Banka, 1969 Crl.L.J. 1177, has observed as follows: ."Although an inquiry under Sec.476 (of the old Code) is a preliminary inquiry, there is nothing in the provisions of the section to prevent the court conducting such inquiry to come to its own finding, after considering all the evidence before it, as to whether the alleged offence has been committed or not. As the court has to form an opinion as to whether it is expedient in the interest of justice whether the prosecution should be launched or not, the court may find it necessary to consider and discuss the entire evidence for the purpose of coming to a finding whether the alleged offence was committed or not and may then decide whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to launch a prosecution". .9. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Balshiram v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 Crl.L.J. 821, while dealing with the duty of the trial court under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has held as follows: ."Where the public servants and the victim of the attack committed perjury, the trial court could take action summarily under Sec.344 and punish them then and there. He would also hold a summary enquiry under Sec.340(1) and decide whether a complaint should be filed. Where the trial court did not take such action it was open to the High Court to act under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.340". 10. In Jawaia Parshad v. Ram Parshad, A.I.R. 1940 Lah. 526, a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, has held the view that there is no provision of law that a second application under Sec.476 (of the old Code) cannot be made where a first application has been dismissed for nonappearance of the applicant. 10. In Jawaia Parshad v. Ram Parshad, A.I.R. 1940 Lah. 526, a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, has held the view that there is no provision of law that a second application under Sec.476 (of the old Code) cannot be made where a first application has been dismissed for nonappearance of the applicant. The principle of "nemo debet" is not applicable where there has been no inquiry on the merits and that even Sec.476-B gives an appeal against a refusal to make a complaint, not against a dismissal in default. It has further held as follows: "An application under Sec.476 is entirely different from a complaint; it is merely the means of drawing the court’s attention to the fact that an offence appears to have been committed in proceedings before that court, a fact, which it can in the majority of cases verify even without the help of the applicant. It is manifestly most improper for the court to shirk its obvious duty of applying its mind to the question whether it should make a complaint or not, merely because the applicant does not appear in support of his application". In the light of the above legal ratios enunciated by the courts of our land, it is gathered, that to entertain a complaint filed under Sec.340 of the Code, the court is required to conduct an inquiry by gathering all materials and find out whether there was a prima facie case or not to be prosecuted or to be dropped forthwith, even by suo motu or upon the complaint by the aggrieved person and failure to do so will entail the invoking of the power under Sec.341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by means of an appeal. The High Court, while sitting on the revision under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code, when it is able to identify the impropriety or illegality committed by a subordinate Judge who passed the impugned judgment or order, which causes miscarriage of justice or denial of justice, then, the accepted position is, that irrespective of the bar provided under subsection (2) of Sec.341 of the Code, can intervene, by virtue of the inherent power made available under Sec.482 of the Code and it is the well settled principle of law in this regard. This being the position, then, I have to consider whether the instant revision can be allowed having regard to the alleged facts and circumstances of the case or not. 11. There was no dispute or controversy regarding some incident that happened on 12. 1987 in the open court of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, while the applications above referred, were being heard by the learned Judge. Pertinent at this stage, to extract the relevant passages found in the remarks called for and sent by the learned trial Judge dated 12. 1987 and addressed to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, within six days after the alleged occurrence, which is, as follows: "I submit that on 12. 1987 the matter was heard by me from 55. p.m. to 3.15 p.m. and again from 4 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 12. 1987, in the midst of arguments by Major K.Mathews, there were altercations between the plaintiff and Mr.J. Raja Kalifulla and I could hear both of them saying "shut up". In the next moment, I saw Mr.J. Raja Kalifulla, the advocate for the defendants slapping Mr. Major K.Mathews on his cheek in the open court-hall. Mr.Major K. Mathews immediately said that he is also capable of assaulting the said advocate but he would not stoop to that level. In the meantime, one advocate, Mr.A.Muthu who was present in the court-hall in connection with an emergent application in I.A.No. 22444 of 1987 in O.S.No.10809 of 1987 intervened and pacified Mr.J. Raja Kalifulla and Major K.Mathews. I submit that the action of the advocate, Mr.Raja Kalifulla amounted to contempt of court but since he apologised to me at once for his behaviour, I did not take any action against him for contempt". Then with regard to the counter allegations made by the respondent against the revision petitioner herein, the remarks submitted by the learned trial Judge speaks the truth. Thus, a plain reading and understanding of the above passage extracted clearly demonstrates the fact that the incident happened on the relevant day in the open court requires an inquiry to be conducted and proceeded with in accordance with law. 12. Thus, a plain reading and understanding of the above passage extracted clearly demonstrates the fact that the incident happened on the relevant day in the open court requires an inquiry to be conducted and proceeded with in accordance with law. 12. Then, it appears upon the written complaint given by the revision petitioner before the learned trial Judge, praying for action to be taken against the respondent, while refusing to entertain the same, the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has made the following order: "Returned Regarding the occurrence, this Court has already submitted a report to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Hence, in the interest of justice I consider that an enquiry by myself is not proper". (Sd.)......... 21. 1988. IV Asst. Judge, C.C.C., Madras. 13. This order, in my considered view, amounts to a clear refusal of entertaining the complaint on the ground that to entertain the said complaint by himself, namely, IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, who presided over the court on 12. 1987 since a party, was not proper but not on the ground that since the respondent had tendered apology, he is declined to entertain the said complaint. The above order, does not amount to a speaking order while refusing to entertain the complaint on merits, as pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, in the appeal. It has to be noted, that since the learned IV Assistant Judge, was present and in whose presence, the alleged incident had happened on 12. 1987 and as called for by Principal Judge, he has sent the remarks already and that for the abovesaid reasonings, he has returned the complaint stating that in the interests of justice conducting by himself an enquiry was not proper, which, in my considered view, amounts to a candid refusal for entertaining the complaint. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment rendered by the principal Sessions Judge, clearly discloses that the abovesaid factum has been totally overlooked and has not been considered at all. This is a case, where a person while projecting his grievances before a court of law, by means of an argument, was attacked in the presence of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras as evident from his report sent to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, at the earliest point of time. This is a case, where a person while projecting his grievances before a court of law, by means of an argument, was attacked in the presence of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras as evident from his report sent to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, at the earliest point of time. According to the same Judge, it clearly amounts to contempt of court and further it is seen, that he himself felt that it was not proper for him to conduct an inquiry for the abovesaid reason and thus, by an indirect way, the complaint lodged under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been controverted or refused, which, in my clear view, causes a great injustice and serious prejudice to the revision petitioner herein. Thus, in the context of the above clear picture and established circumstances, the very finding of the lower appellate judge in rejecting the appeal on the ground that Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code has not been attracted and accordingly, the rejection of the appeal is totally erroneous, unknown to law and it suffers for want of legal competence, namely, the propriety. In short, the, learned principal Sessions-Judge, has clearly overlooked all legal Principles and the Justice to-be done to the parties by conducting an inquiry, in the context of the facts and circumstances like the one, involved in the present case. Thus, having considered, I feel, that this revision can be entertained for the abovesaid reasons and it has got every merit and accordingly, this impugned order is liable to be interfered with in this revision. In the interests of justice, I deem it necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and accordingly, direct the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras to entertain the complaint given by the petitioner and conduct an inquiry thereupon by giving an opportunity for both parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary and that direction will meet the ends of justice. 14. In the result, the revision succeeds. The impugned judgment rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, in C.A.No.18 of 1988 dated 5. 1988, is hereby, set aside. Accordingly, the present IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is directed to comply with the above directions immediately, conduct the inquiry and dispose of the same in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible.