Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 928 (MAD)

S. Balamurugan v. Ragunathan

2012-02-21

S.PALANIVELU

body2012
ORDER 1. At the outset, the petitioner laid a complaint before the 10th respondent police stating that he was entrusted the work of supervising the construction of wall between the place belonging to them and one Varadaraj, that Gnanasekar and Chandrasekar sons of Raghunathan and Parvathi objected to the construction of height of above 4 feet and their relatives Vijayaraghavan, his wife Vasantha, Rajendran brother of Vijayaraghavan and his wife Angayarkanni and sister of Vijayaraghavan by name Thulasi, prevented from construction and threw away the bricks, that when the complainant enquired they told that if he wanted to-construct compound wall, he had to allot one portion in his site and that they trespassed into the place of the complaint and the above said occurrence took place at 3.00 p.m. on 21.6.2009. 2. Since the police did not take any action on the complaint, the petitioner filed private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Trichirappalli, under Section 200 Cr.P.C, praying the Court to direct the Woraiyur Police to register the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and proceed with the investigation. Accordingly on 15.7.2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the Station House Officer, Woraiyur Police Station, to register the case and to report. The case was registered in mistake of fact. The Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the present petitioner to file protest petition and the said Court passed the impugned order dated 12.5.2011 rejecting the request for investigation of the matter by some other competent authority and taking the petition on file under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 3. Aggrieved at the said order the petitioner has preferred the present revision. 4. It is observed by the learned Judicial Magistrate that during investigation, the police enquired the witnesses, prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch and came to the conclusion that the case is mistake of fact and filed report to that effect. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sitharanjandas would contend that the Judicial Magistrate has got powers to order reinvestigation by some other competent authority but she has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 6. The learned Government Advocate says that there is nothing wrong on the part of the Court below to turn down the prayer of the complaint. 7. Sitharanjandas would contend that the Judicial Magistrate has got powers to order reinvestigation by some other competent authority but she has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 6. The learned Government Advocate says that there is nothing wrong on the part of the Court below to turn down the prayer of the complaint. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others AIR 1999 SC 2332 : (1999) 5 SCC 740 : wherein it is held that reinvestigation can be ordered by Magistrate without affording opportunity of hearing the accused even after receipt of first report of police. It is also observed that even after the Court took cognizance of the offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation and in such situation, the power of the Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. 8. In Roopchand Lal and Another v. State of Bihar and Another AIR 1968 SC 117 it is held that if the Magistrate feels, after considering the final report, that the investigation is unsatisfactory, or incomplete or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the police to make further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 9. In Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Madras-8 1989 L.W. (Crl.) 155 this Court has held that the Magistrate may adopt any of the actions: (i) to accept it and drop the proceedings, (ii) direct further investigation, (iii) investigate himself or order for investigation or (iv) take cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as a private complaint if the materials warrant the course and he need not in all cases automatically accept the negative report. 10. The decision of this Court in K. Jayasree v. State (2005) 1 MLJ (Crl) 511 and an unreported decision of this Court in Crl. O.P. (MD). No. 12619 of 2010 Raghavalu v. The State rep. by the Inpsector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Trichy District dated 15.11.2010 are also in the above said lines. 11. 10. The decision of this Court in K. Jayasree v. State (2005) 1 MLJ (Crl) 511 and an unreported decision of this Court in Crl. O.P. (MD). No. 12619 of 2010 Raghavalu v. The State rep. by the Inpsector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Trichy District dated 15.11.2010 are also in the above said lines. 11. In the original complaint the petitioner has not mentioned that life threat was issued by the respondents. But in the complaint filed before the Court he explained that if the petitioner constructed wall, they would kill him and bury in his place itself. The learned Judicial Magistrate has gone through the materials on record including the records pertaining to the investigation and come to a conclusion that no re-investigation need to be ordered and the protest petition be treated as private complaint. 12. In the considered view of this Court, the Judicial Magistrate has judiciously exercised her jurisdiction. Only if the Judicial Magistrate is satisfied that further investigation by the police is necessary, it can be ordered. There is nothing wrong on the part of the Judicial Magistrate, to treat the protest petition as private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In such a view of this matter, this Court does not find any merits in this petition. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Revision dismissed.