Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 281 (MAD)

J. Elangovan v. P. Karuppaian & Others

2006-02-07

M.JEYAPAUL

body2006
Judgment :- (Revision preferred against the order dated 23.9.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.4888 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) The revision is filed challenging the order of dismissal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In the private complaint, the petitioner has alleged that the accused in the said private complaint attacked the petitioner and others with hands and legs and committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore has examined three witnesses including the petitioner herein on the side of the petitioner under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal procedure and having adverted to the case in C.C.No.284 of 2002 pending on the file of the very same Court, chose to dismiss the complaint as a case had already been taken on file by the said Court based on the complaint given by one Punniyamoorthy working in Talkrose Chemicals India Limited. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore had travelled beyond the scope of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and having analysed the records available in C.C.No.284 of 2002 on its file chose to dismiss the private complaint of the petitioner. He would further argue that in the said case only four accused have been arraigned whereas in the present private complaint filed by the petitioner as many as 10 accused have been arraigned. 5. Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:- "Dismissal of complaint.--If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing." As per the above provision of law, the reasons for dismissing the complaint should be based on inference of facts arising from or disclosed by the complaint, the statements on oath of the complainant and of the other witnesses. 6. This Court, in Ashok Kumar Vs. 6. This Court, in Ashok Kumar Vs. Mariappan (1993 L.W. (Crl.) 86), has observed as follows:- "There can be no doubt, that a complaint could be dismissed if the Magistrate thought that there was no 'sufficient ground' for proceeding. This sufficient ground 'contemplated in the Section relates to the facts which the complainant places before the Court to show about the existence of a prima facie case against the accused. In exercising his discretionary power of summary dismissal of the complaint, the Magistrate should not allow himself to be swayed away by considerations which may not be germane at that stage and all that he could do would be to consider as to whether there was prima facie evidence of a criminal offence which, in his judgement would be sufficient to call upon the alleged offender to answer. It is of course true that in coming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complainant or in the evidence let in by the complaint in support of the allegations." It is found from the above authority that the learned Judicial Magistrate should not consider the matters which are not relevant at the stage of finding whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 7. It is the settled position of law that there can be only one complaint relating to an occurrence and there cannot be many a complaint setting out the very same facts and circumstances of an occurrence. Of course, there may be an occasion where counter-complaint may be there levelling allegation against the counter-party. In that case both will have to be registered and simultaneous trial of both the cases is contemplated under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, but there cannot be two complaints emanated from the same group of parties on the same set of facts relating to the same occurrence. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore has chosen to take judicial notice of C.C.No.284 of 2002 pending on its file. Except the fact that in the said C.C.No.284 of 2002, four accused alone have been arraigned, all other facts have been found to be similar in the present private complaint given by the petitioner herein. In fact, the petitioner has been examined as a third witness in C.C.No.284 of 2002. Except the fact that in the said C.C.No.284 of 2002, four accused alone have been arraigned, all other facts have been found to be similar in the present private complaint given by the petitioner herein. In fact, the petitioner has been examined as a third witness in C.C.No.284 of 2002. When the law does not recognise registration of two sets of complaints on the very same facts, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore is bound to take judicial notice of the pendency of C.C.No.284/2002 on the very same set of facts. The petitioner cannot be permitted to misuse the process of law by filing a private complaint when the first information report had already been lodged by another person and set the law in motion. 9. The learned Judicial Magistrate has every right to deal with the factors which are relevant for the disposal of the private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. The learned Magistrate, of course, is bound to rely upon the complaint and the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. But when the question of maintainability of the complaint arises, the learned Judicial Magistrate has every power to travel beyond the scope of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hold that the complaint is sheer misuse of the process of law. That was precisely the mode of approach adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore. The above authority of this Court also would say that the learned Judicial Magistrate has to consider the complaint and the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In fact, it has been held therein that the factors which are pertinent and relevant can be adverted to. 11. The grievance of the petitioner that the other accused had not been arraigned as an accused in the case in C.C.No.284/2002 can be redressed by invoking the provision under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the appropriate stage. 11. The grievance of the petitioner that the other accused had not been arraigned as an accused in the case in C.C.No.284/2002 can be redressed by invoking the provision under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the appropriate stage. There is no illegality or impropriety in the finding rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore in dismissing the private complaint of the petitioner and therefore interference therewith by this Court is totally unwarranted. 12. In the result, the criminal revision fails and it stands dismissed.