O R D E R

Due to dispute regarding usage of cart track, two groups have clashed leading to registration of complaint in Crime Nos.43 of 2018 and 44 of 2018 on

09.02.2018 by the 1st respondent.

2. As far as the complaint registered in Crime No.43 of 2018 given by the 1st petitioner and the same has been taken up for investigation and final report filed for offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 427, 506(ii) of I.P.C. 3. The Learned Judicial Magistrate II, Bhavani has taken the complaint on file and assigned C.C.No.43 of 2018. Whereas, the complaint given by Thiru.Karuppannan (the second respondent herein) was registered in Crime No.44 of 2018 on the same day and on completion of investigation, the police closed the complaint as mistake of fact. On receipt of the R.C.S.No. 3 of 2018 notice, the defacto complainant Thiru.Karuppannan has filed Protest Petition.

3. The Learned Judicial Magistrate had taken the protest petition on file and assigned C.C.No.1 of 2019 and caused summons to the accused persons. The petitioners, who were arrayed as accused in C.C.No.1 of 2019 had come before this Court to quash the complaint.

4. The petition to quash is on the ground that, the Learned Judicial Magistrate ought not to have entertained the protest petition and taken cognizance of the offence. The complaint is liable to be quashed since the Learned Judicial Magistrate has travelled beyond his power. The non-speaking order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant states that the complaint was taken on file only after due enquiry and considering the evidence. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent states that it is a case and case-in-counter arose in the same transaction occurred on 08.02.2018. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, considering the protest petition and on perusal of the document has found prima facie case made out and therefore, caused accused summons to the petitioners herein. There is no error in the action of the Learned Judicial Magistrate and therefore, the petition is to be dismissed.

7. This Court, on perusing the record finds that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner claiming the order of taking cognizance bereft of reasoning is incorrect. In fact, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, after affording sufficient opportunity had examined the complainant orally and perused the record after being satisfied the prima facie exist taken cognizance. He has recorded reason for taking the protest petition on file, vide his order dated 06.02.2019. As pointed by the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the State, being Case and a Case-in-Counter in connection with the same transaction, the Learned Judicial Magistrate to take up both the cases together for trial as provided under Police Standing Order and Criminal Rules of Practice. By doing so, no prejudice be caused to the petitioner herein.

8. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

14.08.2022 Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No.

bsm To, 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhavani, Erode District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vellithiruppur Police Station, Vellithiruppur, Erode District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

bsm Crl.O.P.No.31326 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.17084 & 17086 of 2019

14.09.2022