1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD).No.422 of 2011 Boopathy ... Petitioner vs. The Inspector of Police Sellur Police Station Madurai City,Madurai. ... Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 30.04..2011 passed in Cr.M.P.No.368 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.R.Pandi Maharaja For respondent : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. This revision has been preferred, challenging the order, dated 30.04.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.368 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3. It is seen that Cr.M.P.No.368 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner herein under Sections 156 (3), 190 (1) (a) r/w 200 Cr.P.C, seeking an order to register a case with regard to the complaint given on 11.06.2005 alleging that an amount of Rs.3,30,920/- was forced to be seized by the petitioner by Inspector Murugesan, Sub-Inspector Thangapandian and the Constable Balachandran. 4. Mr.R.Pandi Maharaja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that occurrence had taken place on 09.06.2005, however the petitioner could not file a complaint before the said police station, since the said accused are Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police and Constable and further submitted that the petitioner sent complaint directly to the Superior Officers of the aforesaid police officials on 11.06.2005. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on 28.11.2008, complaint was received by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai. In the additional typed set, the copy of the alleged complaint, dated 11.06.2005 is available, whereby the petitioner has sent a telegram to the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City Police, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and other police officers, informing that on 09.06.2005, police personals from Sellur B14 police station unlawfully entered into his residential house and seized cash Rs.3,30,920/- and that money had been received from the students of MAHA Matriculation School towards school fees and that the money was forcibly taken by the Inspector against law. However, the petitioner has not lodged any complaint with supporting materials before the concerned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 police station. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the Inspector and other police officials are the accused, he could not lodge a complaint before the very same police station, but strangely he has not met the Commissioner of Police and filed any complaint with supporting materials. It is seen that the petitioner is the correspondent of a school and not a layman but he had simply sent a telegram, without meeting the higher level police officers. 7. As per the impugned order passed by the Court below, it has been held that the alleged offence was not made out against the Inspector of Police and other police officials and further, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has every right to file private complaint before the Magistrate Court. However, no complaint was filed before the Magistrate against the respondents for the alleged occurrence, said to have taken place on 09.06.2005. The petitioner had simply sent a telegram and letter correspondence and produced only copy of the complaint with postal acknowledgements. On 20.08.2011, the petitioner filed the petition before the Court below, wherein he has not disputed that there is a case in Cr.No.1473 of 2005 registered against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC by police. 8. The Court below has passed a detailed order stating that there is no prima facie material available against the then Inspector Police, Murugesan, Sub-Inspector Thangapandian and the Constable Balachandran of B14 Sellur police station. As there was no prima facie case and supporting material available against the said persons, the Court below dismissed the relief sought for by the petitioner, seeking an order to register case against the said persons. 9. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner has to prima facie make out a case against the police officials. Merely because the respondents were Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Constable in a police station, the petitioner cannot raise a plea that he could not file a complaint against them and further, even if it true, the petitioner could have met the Commissioner of Police or other senior police officers to ventilate his grievance or he could have filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the concerned Magistrate. Without resorting to the legal procedures, seeking legal remedy available, the petitioner has simply filed a petition nearly six years, after the alleged occurrence on 28.02.2011, seeking order to register a case without producing any supporting materials. In the aforesaid circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order to allow this revision. 10. In the result, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR(RECORDS) /TRUE COPY/ TSVN SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police,Sellur Police Station,Madurai City, Madurai. 3.The Addl Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1cc To Mr.C.M.ARumugam SR No.38878 SB:13/12/2011 2P 4 Crl.R.C.(MD).No.422 of 2011 09-11-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/