Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4764
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Venugopal, J.
K. Jackuline Sathya Priya
Versus
Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srirangam, Trichy and Others
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 456 of 2012 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 28 November 2012
A. Hariharan, for Appellant P. Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), A. Thiruvadikumar, for Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant must be given an opportunity of being heard before the case is taken on file by the Learned Judicial Magistrate. Additionally, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to order further investigation, and the complainant has no locus standi to file for further investigation.
Headnote:
Opportunity of Hearing - Criminal Revision Petition - Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C - Sections 420, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act - Section 498(A) of IPC - Bhagwant Sing v. Commissioner of Police 1985 Crl.L.J.1521 - Haridas v. State of Kerala (2001) MLJ (Crl.) 830 - Rajneesh Kumar Singhal v. The State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) 2001 Cri.L.J.1192 - A. Sadasivam v. The Director General of Police, Chennai and 2 Others 2002-2 L.W. (Crl.) 674 - Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 4 MLJ (Crl.) 1004 (SC) - E. Jeevankumar v. State and Another 2011 Cri.L.J.418 - A. Mohan and Others v. State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Colleroon Police Station, Trichy and Another (2012) 2 MLJ (Crl) 767
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought further investigation of a case, alleging that the police failed to provide an opportunity of hearing and did not record statements of the complainant and witnesses. The police altered the section of law and dropped action against 10 accused without informing the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not provided with an opportunity of being heard before taking the case on file by the Learned Judicial Magistrate. The court also emphasized that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to return the challan for further investigation, and the complainant has no locus standi to file for further investigation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the complainant's right to an opportunity of hearing, the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to order further investigation, and the complainant's locus standi to file for further investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant must be given an opportunity of being heard before the case is taken on file by the Learned Judicial Magistrate. It also emphasized that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to return the challan for further investigation, and the complainant has no locus standi to file for further investigation.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, affirming the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate. The court stated that the dismissal of the petition would not preclude the complainant from seeking appropriate remedy before the Trial Court.
1. The revision petitioner/de facto complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 21.8.2012 in Crl. M.P. No. 5454 of 2012 in Cr. No. 48 of 2011 in C.C. No. 94 of 2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tiruchirappalli, in dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner, praying for further investigation of the case in a proper manner.
2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tiruchirappalli, while passing orders in Crl. M.P. No. 5454 of 2012 dated 21.8.2012, has many other things observed that the petitioner/de facto complainant has not questioned her statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. and also a reading of the complaint does not make any allegation against all others and entire allegation is against her husband and mother-in-law and resultantly, dismissed the petition.
3. Assailing the dismissal order of the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 5454 of 2012 in C.C. No. 94 of 2012 dated 21.8.2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tiruchirappalli, the learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant urges before this Court that the Learned Judicial Magistrate has failed to appreciate as per the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Sing v. Commissioner of Police 1985 Crl.L.J.1521, wherein, it is observed that in a case, where the Learned Judicial Magistrate, to whom a report is forwarded under sub section 2 of Section 173 of Cr.P.C decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Learned Judicial Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court has not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/de facto complainant at the time of consideration of the report before taking the case on file as C.C. No. 94 of 2012 on the basis of the final report submitted by the First Respondent/Police.
5. The specific stand taken by the petitioner/de facto complainant is that in the First Information Report, in Crime No. 48 of 2011 on the file of the First Respondent/Police, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 294(b) , 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner/de facto complainant against 1. Melvin Leo Alocius, 2. Alangaram, 3. Sebastian, 4. Julie, 5. Nixon, 6. John Britto, 7. John William, 8. Madhalai Arockiaraj, 9. Grace Alphone, 10. Yucresta Melany, 11. Anitta Melvina and 12. Persia Melory, attributing specific overt acts against them.
6. The substance of the plea of the petitioner is that as per Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer is obliged to communicate to the informant as to the action taken by him and the report forwarded by him to the Learned Judicial Magistrate.
7. Yet another contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner/de facto complainant is that the First Respondent/Police never recorded the statements of the de facto Complainant and the witnesses produced by her.
8. That apart, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant that the Petitioner has sent complaint against the Police to the Higher Officials of the Police and this caused prejudice to the Police and they wanted to favour to the Accused in all possible manner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant projects an argument that Mr. Senthilkumar, Inspector of Police, incharge of the First Respondent Police Station has deleted the names of 10 Accused from the array of the Accused and his alleged report dropping action against 10 named accused is dated 27.11.2011 even before the registration of the First Information
