SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 5564

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. PALANIVELU, J.
Madasamy Devar
Versus
State rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police & Another
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.69 of 2010
Decided On : 23-12-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Murugan for K. Samidurai, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - P. Rajendran, Govt. Advocate (Crl), R. Alagumani, Advocate.

The absence of notice to the complainant before taking cognizance of the offences vitiated the subsequent proceedings.

Headnote:

Revision Petition - Criminal Procedure - Sections 147, 148, 447, 342, 506(ii), 379 (NP) I.P.C - The judgment discusses the legal consequences of the absence of notice to the defacto complainant before taking cognizance of the offences. The court refers to various legal provisions and interpretations, including the requirement to issue notice to the defacto complainant before accepting a final report and the power of the High Court to set right the proceedings before the subordinate Courts.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a complaint alleging trespassing, theft, and criminal intimidation. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences without issuing notice to the complainant. The petitioner sought further investigation, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the absence of notice to the complainant before taking cognizance of the offences vitiated the subsequent proceedings, including the recording of evidence.

Issues: Whether the absence of notice to the complainant before taking cognizance of the offences had legal consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of notice to the complainant before taking cognizance of the offences vitiated the subsequent proceedings.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, setting aside the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate and the consequent proceedings, including the recording of evidence. The Judicial Magistrate was directed to issue notice to the complainant and parties concerned and pass further orders in accordance with the law.

Judgment :-

1. The revision petition had laid a complaint on 22.4.2007 before Sambavar Vadakarai Police Station and the same was registered in Cr.No.61 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 447, 342, 506(ii) and 379 (NP) I.P.C. In the complaint he had alleged that he is supervising the coconut thope belonging to A.R.S. Ramalingam, that on 24.7.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. one Jabarullah S/o Peer Mohammed and 20 other persons, whose names are not known to the complainant, but they could be identified by him, entered into the coconut thope, plucked coconut and removed in tractors, that he received information at 4.00 p.m. and proceeded to the occurrence place where he saw about 20 henchmen under the leadership of the first accused trespassed to the coconut thope and removed about 20,000/- coconuts worth about Rs.50,000/-by tractors bearing Registration No.TN-76-B-3700, TN-72-Z-1375 and TDT 8560, that while the complainant prevented them along with 5 other persons, they criminally intimidated them, that they were detained in the thope by the trespassers upto 10 p.m. and while the accused left the place in Maruti Amni Van bearing Registration No.TN-76-B-4154, they threatened him that they would kill him if he identified them.

2. After the investigation, the first respondent laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi under Sections 447, 342, 506(2) and Section 379 (NP) I.P.C against Jabarullah and three named persons. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and assigned C.C.No.230 of 2008. He proceeded with the trial of the case. As many as 14 witnesses were examined before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the case was posted for hearing arguments of both sides. At that time, the petitioner filed an application under Section 173 Cr.P.C.(Protest Petition) requesting the Court to order for further investigation by some other police station. For the said purpose he intended to file a writ petition before the High Court and to adjourn the case by two months to enable him to get the orders.

3. In the said petition he has raised so many grounds for ordering reinvestigation. Both the respondents filed objections to the petition by the complainant/petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah has dismissed the petition filed by this petitioner by observing that he is not entitled to seek for reinvestigation of further investigation as per the decision of the Supreme Court in 2009 SAR (Cri) 851 [Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal]. Hence this revision.

4. Even though in the protest petition and the present revision petition, various other grounds have been raised by the petitioner for ordering reinvestigation or further investigation, for the disposal, it is sufficient to deal with only one issue in this matter, i.e., whether the learned Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the complainant before taking cognizance of the offence against the accused? If not, what is the legal consequences?

5. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, this Court on 1.7.2010 passed a direction calling for a report from the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottah, Tirunelveli District, as to whether notice was issued from the Court concerned to the defacto complainant before taking cognizance of the offence after filing of the final report in this case. Responding to this, the learned Judicial Magistrate submitted a report stating that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C in Cr.No.61 of 2007 of Sambavarvadakarai Police Station was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi on 27.11.2007 and the same was taken on file on the same date as C.C.No.438 of 2007 under Section 447, 342, 506(2) and 379 I.P.C., that no notice was issued to the defacto complainant from the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, at the time of taking cognizance, subsequently Sambavarvadakarai Police Station was brought under Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and consequently the said CC.No.433 of 2003 was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Sh





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top