Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1724 (MAD)

Pechimuthupandiyan v. Sountharrajan & Another

2003-10-23

N.DHINAKAR

body2003
Judgment :- This is a petition to direct the second respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint forwarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was filed before the Magistrate as Cr.M.P.No.3155 of 2000. 2. The petitioner, in the complaint, has alleged that the accused, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, Achanpudur Police Station, took him to the police station at about 8.00 a.m. on 26.6.2000 under the pretext of examining him in connection with a petition received against him and at the police station, he was threatened to pay a sum of Rs.8,500/- to Subramaniam within a week. He has further averred that when he stated that no amount is due to Subramaniam from him, he was abused in filthy language and was locked up in the lock up room and according to him, at about 9.00 a.m., he was brought out of the lock up room and was also asked to sign on a blank paper and that he initially refused to comply; but later, on account of the threat and on being afraid of the consequences, he signed on the blank paper. He has further alleged that he was later sent away from the police station and that the accused in this private complaint has committed the offences under Sections 294(b), 342, 506 Part-II and 384 IPC. 3. After the complaint was presented, it was forwarded by the Magistrate to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate was kept waiting for the report to be submitted by the officer concerned. It could be seen from the entries in the docket sheet that the complaint was forwarded on 6.7.2000 and the Magistrate has adjourned the case from time to time on account of the non receipt of the report of the police, though the petitioner was present on all the dates of hearing. Several reminders were sent by the learned Magistrate and ultimately, a report was received by the Court to the effect that on enquiry, the allegations in the complaint are found to be false. The learned Magistrate accepted the said report and dismissed the complaint under Section 159 Cr.P.C. 4. Several reminders were sent by the learned Magistrate and ultimately, a report was received by the Court to the effect that on enquiry, the allegations in the complaint are found to be false. The learned Magistrate accepted the said report and dismissed the complaint under Section 159 Cr.P.C. 4. Though it is submitted by the prosecution that a copy of the said report was also served on the petitioner, the said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The prosecution is not able to produce any material before this Court indicating that a copy of the said report was served on the petitioner, who is the complainant and therefore, this Court is to only infer that no copy was served on the petitioner. If the copy of the report had been served upon the petitioner, he could have persuaded the learned Magistrate to take the complaint on file, so that he could enquire himself. It is also admitted that the report stating that the allegations are false in nature was arrived at by the investigating officer on the basis of the statements recorded by him. When this Court specifically asked the prosecution to produce the statements to find out whether they have recorded the statements in terms of the provisions of Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecution could not produce the recorded statements and was also not in a position to inform the Court as to the provisions under which the alleged statements were recorded. When a complaint is received by the learned Magistrate, either he can take cognizance of the said complaint, if a cognizable offence is made out, or without taking cognizance of the complaint, can forward the complaint to the police for the purpose of registering first information report and conducting investigation. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words, while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint, vide SURESHCHAND JAIN -vs- STATE OF MADYA PRADESH & ANOTHER (J.T. 2001(2) SC 81). The allegations, which are found in the complaint and which I have extracted in the order above, disclose a cognizable offence and therefore, this Court is at a loss to understand as to why the Deputy Superintendent of Police did not investigate the crime in spite of the specific direction issued by the learned magistrate. On the contrary, the Deputy Superintendent of Police simply filed a report, that too after several reminders were sent by the Court, stating that the allegations are false. The statements alleged to have been recorded by him cannot be treated as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as the Deputy Superintendent of Police did not register the crime under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The conduct of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in not registering the crime and not investigating it; but simply sending a report to the Court stating that the allegations are false is to be deprecated in strongest terms. In my view, the learned Magistrate has also committed an error in simply accepting the report without even trying to ascertain whether a copy of the said report was served on the petitioner. He did not also look into the complaint to find out whether any cognizable offence is made out, of which, he could take cognizance and the learned Magistrate, taking a short cut to justice, dismissed the complaint under Section 159 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate failed to see that the report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police stating that the allegations are false in nature is not a final report as no crime was registered and investigation was not conducted. 5. On going through the entire materials and in view of the conduct of the investigating officer in not investigating the complaint, I feel that interest of justice requires that a thorough investigation is to be conducted on the allegations made in the complaint and accordingly, I direct the investigation to be conducted on the complaint given by the petitioner to the learned Magistrate. The said investigation will be conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Tirunelveli, who will be nominated by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Chennai, and the records lying with the second respondent will be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Chennai, within a week from today, so that the investigation can be conducted in a proper manner by the officer nominated as above. With the above observations, the criminal original petition is allowed.