1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.437 of 2011 Muniammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Viruthunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Viruthunagar West Police Station, Viruthunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondent No.2 to register F.I.R. on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 30.11.2010, consequently directing the respondent No.2 to complete the investigation and file charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to direct the respondent No.2 to register F.I.R. on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 30.11.2010, consequently directing the respondent No.2 to complete the investigation and file charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court. 2.Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the complaint given by the petitioner to the respondent was not registered. Hence, he requests this Court that the respondent may be directed to hold an enquiry and to register a case accordingly. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the that the second respondent has sought for report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police and after getting the said report only, the 2nd respondent can proceed with the complaint and if any prima facie case is made out, the said complaint would be registered and the investigation would also be commenced. 5. Considering the submissions made by the both sides, the second respondent is directed to go into the allegations made in the complaint dated 30.11.2010 after getting the report from the Deputy Superintendent of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Police and to find out the prima facie case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if for any reason there is no prima facie case made out, it is for the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law and cannot seek a direction of this Court to register a complaint. 6. Further, this Court could see that the relief sought for by the petitioner for registration of the complaint has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC) equivalent to the judgment reported in 2007 (4) Crimes 338 (SC). According to the said judgment, the complainant should approach the Superintendent of Police in the event of the 2nd respondent police failed to proceed with the registration of the complaint and on the failure of the Superintendent of Police to pass any order under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant should approach the Judicial Magistrate concerned by filing a complaint either under Section 190 Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to pursue the complaint. It is the discretion of the learned Judicial Magistrate either to take cognizance of the case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or to refer the complaint for being investigated by the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. So far as this case is concerned, the petitioner is yet to seek remedy before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate concerned before approaching this Court. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to direct the petitioner to file a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate concerned if necessary, after the formalities before police, ended against the petitioner. On such filing of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate concerned may either refer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter only the petitioner to approach this Court, if necessary. Therefore, the petitioner should approach this Court only after exhausting all the process of law as contemplated. But he had approached this Court without following the procedures mentioned therein and therefore this Court has no other option to dispose the petition with the aforesaid observations. 7. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vsm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Viruthunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Viruthunagar West Police Station, Viruthunagar District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. R. ALAGUMANI, ADVOCATE, SR: 2390: DM:2011:FEB:03: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.437 of 2011 2P:5C:: 21.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/