The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of a private complaint and the order to register FIR should not be an abuse of process of law, and the court should adhere to territorial jurisdiction and the necessity of prior sanction to proceed against a public servant.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in respect of the impugned order dated 01.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.333 of 2022 passed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing the 2nd respondent to register Fir against the petitioner and to file the report and set aside the same as against the petitioner/accused.)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 01.02.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.333 of 2022 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., directing the 2nd respondent police to register FIR against the petitioner on the basis of the private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defacto complainant claims to be a practicing Lawyer. The background on which the private complaint was filed is that during Covid-19 restrictions, the defacto complainant along with her husband had traveled in a motorcycle without wearing mask. At that time, police Constables and Sub Inspector of Police intercepted them and when they questioned them, there ensued altercation. On hearing the same, the Inspector of Police/the petitioner herein came to the spot and thereafter, due to the altercation and protest shown by the defacto complainant and her husband, registered FIR against the husband of the defacto complainant for the offence under Section 75 of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 and released him on station bail immediately. Thereafter, on the same during night hours, the defacto complainant and her husband were admitted in the hospital as if, they sustained some injuries. Subsequently, she has given a complaint to R-5 Virugambakkam Police Station but, the same was not taken on file. Hence, she gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police. The Assistant Commissioner on enquiry, found that the complaint given by the defacto complainant was motivated and exaggerated and hence, closed he same. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed a private complaint before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 01.02.2022, directed the Station House Officer, R5 Virugambakkam Police Station, to register the FIR as sought for by the defacto complainant. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the entire complaint is motivated due to previous case filed against the husband of the defacto complainant. He further contended that the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint. But on the contrary, he has entertained the private complaint and mechanically passed such an order without applying his mind. His another contention is that the alleged medical certificates produced itself would clearly show that the complaint is nothing but motivated. Further, at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner who is the Inspector of Police was on official duty and therefore, before taking any action and registering FIR, prior sanction is required from the authorities concerned. Hence, submitted that the order directing to register FIR against a serving Inspector of Police, based on the complaint given by the person who had already involved altercation and facing charge under Section 75 of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the seeks to quash the said order.

5. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant and her husband were abused and attacked the by the petitioner and his police party and they were taken to the police. Hence, they gave a complaint before the R5 Vi