2021 Supreme(Mad) 181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
S. Vasanthi - Petitioner
Versus
The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Namakkal - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 112 of 2021 & Crl. M.P. No. 2237 of 2021
Decided On : 16-03-2021

Point of Law: Private complaint - Land grabbing - Since the petitioner filed the complaint under the Land Grabbing Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate should have directed the respondent Police to conduct fresh investigation and file charge sheet and should not have shifted the burden to the petitioner to establish the case by way of private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 and 22 – Land Grabbing Act – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 161, 173, 200, 397 r/w 401, 482 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 – 'Mistake of Fact' – Petitioner has filed a complaint against one Natesan and Rajavelu before the respondent Police and the respondent Police have registered the case against the said persons in Crime for offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506(ii) IPC. – After completing the investigation, the respondent Police closed the case as 'Mistake of Fact' and did not serve RCS notice to the petitioner. – The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in Crl.O.P. before this Court to direct the respondent Police to file a charge sheet in Crime before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. – At the time of hearing, this Court found that the investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed before the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases. – Since the petitioner did not receive the Referred Charge Sheet Notice from the respondent Police, this Court directed the respondent Police to serve RCS notice forthwith to the petitioner and granted liberty to the petitioner to file a protest petition in the manner known to law. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode in C.M.P. – Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the arguments and considering the materials available on record, has given certain directions based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2019 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 406 SC”, that there is no need for further investigation and the allegations made in the protest petition can be proved by producing evidence and in the protest petition, there is no list of witness has been annexed, but on considering the averments stated and prayer sought for in the protest petition, the learned Magistrate inclined to take the protest petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and granted liberty to the petitioner if she chooses to file a fresh complaint by annexing the list of witness and directed the petitioner to give sworn statement and evidence if available and posted the case for recording the sworn statement and production of witnesses. – Challenging the same, the present criminal revision has been filed before this Court

Findings of Court:

Perusal of the records, it is seen that the complaint was given and on the same day, the FIR in Crime was registered, whereas the Referred Charge Sheet was filed as 'Mistake of Fact' – Simply for filing the Referred Charge Sheet, the respondent Police took time for 9 years. – Even at the time of arguments, this Court raised a question to the learned Government Advocate whether the petitioner and the persons mentioned in the complaint that is Kamalam and Balasurili were examined or not, he stated that they were not examined by the Investigating Officer. – Further they informed that the said Kamalam subsequently died. – Therefore, as stated by the learned Senior Counsel, the respondent Police have not examined the petitioner and the witnesses and simply perused the document and filed the Referred Charge Sheet as 'Mistake of Fact'. – Judicial Magistrate also failed to look into the fact that the complaint was given in the year 2011 and the Referred Charge Sheet was filed in the year 2020 that to, after given a direction by this Court – There is no quarrel with the settled preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra by the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode. – However, in this case, the petitioner has filed the objection to the Referred Charge Sheet filed by the respondent Police before the learned Magistrate. – Since the petitioner filed the complaint under the Land Grabbing Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate should have directed the respondent Police to conduct fresh investigation and file charge sheet and should not have shifted the burden to the petitioner to establish the case by way of private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. – A reading of the materials, the respondent Police before filing the Referred Charge Sheet has not completed the investigation in fair and proper manner. – Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode in C.M.P. warrants interference of this Court and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. – The respondent Police is directed to conduct fresh investigate in Crime on the complaint given by the petitioner and file the charge sheet in accordance with law.

Result: Criminal Revision Case Allowed