Judgment : 1. The petition is filed seeking a direction to the District Collector Vellore and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, to register a case and investigate the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.4.1994, pursuant to the enquiry pending on the file of the revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet. 2. The petitioner contends that the police team consisting of certain police officers and police constables dragged him from his cycle stand at about 11.00 p.m. on 19.11.1992 and dumped him in the police van and thereafter he was shot at by the Sub-Inspector of Police an thereby he sustained bullet injuries on his neck, chest, right side stomach and right upper hand. After the first aid given at Government Hospital, Arakkonam, he was treated, on reference, for about 13 days, at Government Hospital, Chennai. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the enquiry ordered by the Collector through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, his compliant was not registered and investigated. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner has sought for the aforesaid directions. 4. The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Vellore District filed counter affidavit, the sum and substance of the same, is as follows:- On 19.11.1992, at about 11.20 p.m. when the Sub Inspector of Police and his team of police were on the irregular rounds, the petitioner, along with four others, caused disturbance to the public. When the Sub Inspector of Police started enquiring the matter, the petitioner picked up quarrel with the Sub-Inspector of Police and in the said process, he used certain unparliamentary words towards the Sub Inspector of Police. Further, the petitioner also took out a knife and delivered cut on the neck and hand of the Sub Inspector of Police. The Sub Inspector of Police, in order to defend himself, opened fire and as a result of which, the petitioner sustained bullet injuries. The Revenue Divisional Office, who conducted enquiry, sent a report to the Collector on 6.3.1993 holding that the opening of fire was only by way of self-defence by the police official. A case in Crime No. 1422 of 1992 for offences punishable under sections 324, 333, 326, 332, 224 and 307 IPC was registered as against the petitioner. The said case was investigated upon and charge sheet also was laid. Now, the said case is pending trial. A case in Crime No. 1422 of 1992 for offences punishable under sections 324, 333, 326, 332, 224 and 307 IPC was registered as against the petitioner. The said case was investigated upon and charge sheet also was laid. Now, the said case is pending trial. The present petition has been filed after 13 years from the date of occurrence. Therefore, the respondents would submit that the petition deserves no consideration. 5. The short point which arises for consideration is whether the police can give a burial of a serious compliant emanated from a public in the guise of a finding given by the Revenue Divisional Officer without the judicial seal of the Court of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the alleged occurrence took place way back on 19.11.1992, the petitioner, who was put behind the bars on registration of a case, came out of the prison and filed an application on 30.4.1994 itself and a reminder also emanated from the petitioner, but, quite unfortunately, the learned Judicial Magistrate, without adverting to the relevant procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, simply transmitted the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who embarked upon an enquiry beyond the domain of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sent an informal report facilitating the Judicial Magistrate to give a decent burial for the serious complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner took consistent steps to set the law in motion in the aftermath of the bullet injuries he received on the vital parts of his body, but, it has fallen on deaf ears. When the occurrence is admitted by the respondent and the fact remains that the petitioner has consistently taken steps to set the law in motion, it is unjust to throw away the compliant of the petitioner on the ground that 13 years has lapsed from the date when the occurrence took place, he would further contend. 7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would vehemently submit that no useful purpose will be served in registering a case as no material could be collected at this distance of time. 7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would vehemently submit that no useful purpose will be served in registering a case as no material could be collected at this distance of time. The RDO enquiry was properly conducted as per the Police Government orders and the compliant was not registered as the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer would disclose that the police officials opened fire as a self-defence in order to ward off the murderous assault launched by the petitioner. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate has referred the compliant of the petitioner only under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Deputy Superintendent of Police also having enquired into the matter returned a finding to the effect that the Sub Inspector of Police opened fire only byway of self-defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly closed the compliant. It is his further submission that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved over the action of the learned Judicial Magistrate in closing the compliant, he should have come out with a private complaint to set the law in motion. Having not done so, the petitioner cannot now wake up and say that his earlier complaint which was thoroughly enquired and closed should be given a new lease of life and the same should be registered and investigated by the police. 8. Of course, Order 151 of the Police Standing Order contemplates enquiry by a Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of the charges of torture by the police or of death or grievous hurt caused by the police. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, such an order found in the Police Standing Order is only an internal procedure. Such a procedure cannot upset the specific provision enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, Order 151 of the Police Standing Order does not at all preclude the judicial purview of the Judicial Magistrate in taking cognizance of an offence complained of before him. 9. Here is a case where admittedly there was an occurrence on 19.11.1992 at about 11.00 p.m. It is also further admitted that the Sub Inspector of Police concerned opened fire and the petitioner herein sustained bullet injuries. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was put behind the bars on arrest on 19.11.1992. 9. Here is a case where admittedly there was an occurrence on 19.11.1992 at about 11.00 p.m. It is also further admitted that the Sub Inspector of Police concerned opened fire and the petitioner herein sustained bullet injuries. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was put behind the bars on arrest on 19.11.1992. We cannot legitimately expect an accused to lodge the complaint against police official when he is in prison. The petitioner has field a complaint on 30.4.1994 immediately after he was released form prison seeking justice in the matter. It is an admitted case that the RDO enquiry was ordered to probe into the incident. The Revenue Divisional Officer also has given a finding that the sub Inspector of Police concerned opened fire by way of self-defence. It is unjust to close the case of such a serious nature based on the finding given by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is not the domain of the representative of the Executive to decide whether the occurrence took place by way of self-defence or not. Even if such a finding had been returned by the Revenue Divisional Officer a case should have been field as against the police official concerned and the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer a case should have been filed as against the police official concerned and the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer should have been tested before the judicial forum. No citizen in our country will be safe if such a procedure is adopted to give a decent burial to the charges of grievous nature which were by and large admitted by the police. 10. It is not a case where nobody sustained any injury in the occurrence. The petitioner has come out with telling material to show that he sustained bullet injuries on vital parts of his body. There is also no denial of such a factum. Therefore, the investigating agency, on registration of this case, need not grope in the dark even at this distance of time. The Court finds that justice will have to be rendered to the petitioner who admittedly received bullet injuries at the hands of the Sub Inspector of Police concerned. The Court which has jurisdiction in this matter has to decide whether it is a case of self-defence or not. 11. The Court finds that justice will have to be rendered to the petitioner who admittedly received bullet injuries at the hands of the Sub Inspector of Police concerned. The Court which has jurisdiction in this matter has to decide whether it is a case of self-defence or not. 11. A very weak submission is made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State that the Judicial Magistrate has chosen to close the complaint on receipt of a report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police. One thing is loud and clear that the Judicial Magistrate has not invoked the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to forward the complaint for registration of a case and investigation of the matter. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the judicial Magistrate has forwarded the said complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police only invoking the provision under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police official, who received such a complaint, should have first registered a case before even investigation was taken up by him. Here is a case where no registration of complaint was done by the police sleuth concerned. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the learned Judicial Magistrate has adopted the procedure as contemplated under section 156 (3), it is found that the complaint was simply closed by him on receipt of some informal report from the Deputy Superintended of Police without giving opportunity to the complainant to challenge the finding of the enquiry embarked upon by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Firstly, it is found that the learned Judicial Magistrate had not exercised his domain under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The enquiry also was not done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as per the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint also was not closed as known to law by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that the only option left to the petitioner is to file a private complaint on the closure of his erstwhile complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate does not have a leg to stand upon. 12. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that the only option left to the petitioner is to file a private complaint on the closure of his erstwhile complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate does not have a leg to stand upon. 12. It is made clear that even if an adverse finding is returned by the Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of the charges of torture by the police or of death or grievous hurt caused by the police, a complaint by an aggrieved person seeking justice before the Court of law cannot be simply buried without adhering to the due process of law. Such a complaint will have to be taken cognizance of if it discloses commission of cognizable offence and the judicial forum will have to necessarily give a verdict as to the charges levelled against the persons concerned. 13. In view of the above, the Court finds that some directions will have to be issued to the police to register a case, investigate the matter and file final report at the earliest point of time. 14. As the police officials were allegedly involved in the occurrence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam is directed to forward the original complaint dated 4.12.2000 to the CBCID, Vellore District, who shall, thereupon, register a case as the complaint reflects commission of cognizable offence, investigate the matter and file final report at the earliest point of time. The criminal original petition is ordered accordingly.