C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2396 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON: 13.04.2022

DELIVERED ON: 25 .04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2396 of 2017

and CMP(MD).No.11420 of 2017

Seenivasaperumal

Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kumbakonam

Thanjavur District

(Now working as Deputy Superintendent of Police)

at Vigilance & Anti-corruption Wing, Virudhunagar)

...Petitioner/Defendant

Vs

Saravanakumar

...Respondent/Plaintiff

PRAYER: Civil Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India to strike the plaint in O.S.No.226 of 2017

pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

For Respondent

: No appearance

O R D E R

The defendant is the revision petitioner

2.The above revision petition has been filed to strike off

the plaint in O.S.No.226 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate

Court, Theni on the ground that it is an abuse of process of law and

there is no cause of action in the plaint for filing the said suit.

3. Though the respondent/plaintiff has been served through

Court on 30.12.2017, the respondent has neither appeared in person

nor engaged a counsel.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended

that he was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police at Bodi,

Theni District and he had filed a final report, in which, the

plaintiff was shown as accused in Crime No.332 of 2013. However, the

respondent/plaintiff was acquitted by the trial Court on the basis

of benefit of doubt. Since the plaintiff was acquitted in the

criminal proceedings, he has filed the present suit claiming a sum

of Rs.1,01,000/- as damages towards malicious prosecution.

1/5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2396 of 2017

5.A perusal of the plaint shows that one Eswaran has lodged a

police complaint before Chinnamanur Police Station for the alleged

offences under Section 294(b), 506(i) I.P.C r/w Section 3(i)(x) of

Prevention of SC & ST Atrocities Act and an F.I.R was registered by

the Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station in Crime No.332

of 2013.

6.Since the offences are under the prevention of SC & ST

Atrocities Act, as per statutory provisions, the same has to be

investigated only by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus the

defendant in the present suit had conducted the investigation and

filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam

in PRC.No.15 of 2014. The Judicial Magistrate committed the same

before the Principal District Court and the said Court had taken on

its file in Spl.S.C.No.8 of 2015. After full fledged trial, the

plaintiff and his brother were acquitted on 22.02.2016.

7.The relevant averments in the plaint relating to the

allegation of malicious prosecution are as follows:

“V.The plaintiff further submit that subsequent to

registered the above Crime No.332/2013 the defendant taken the

investigation as per the rules laid down by the procedure

established by the law, and the defendant laid a charge sheet

against the plaintiff and his brothers before the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam for the alleged offence

under Section 294(b), 506(i) I.P.C r/w 3(i)(x) of the

Prevention of SC & ST Atrocities Act, the same was taken on

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Uthamapalayam vide

PRC.No.15 of 2014 and the learned Magistrate committal the

same before the Principal District Court for exclusively trial

and the same, the District Court taken on its file vide

Spl.S.C.No.8 of 2015 and after the full trial and hearing the

arguments, the plaintiff and his brother were acquitted by the

Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni on 22.02.2016.

VI.The plaintiff further submit that the defendant being the

investigating officer, he doesn't have applied his mind, and

he is not conduct any basic enquiry,