1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.817 of 2011 N.Rajamony ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Superintendent of Police Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari 2. The Sub Inspector of Police Vadasery Police Station Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent to register a case as per the complaint of the petitioner's dated 21.12.2010 and investigate accordance with law. *** For Petitioner : Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to register a case as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.12.2010 and investigate accordance with law. 2. Heard Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the complaint filed by the petitioner was enquired into and on the end of the enquiry, both the petitioner and the accused person have agreed to go to Civil Court for their redressal and accordingly, the Petition was closed. 4. In view of the closer of the Petition before the police station, the Petition seeking for registration of the complaint has become infructuous. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed. However, at this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner may be given liberty to dispute the matter before the learned Magistrate under Section 190 or 200 of Cr.P.C. Considering the submissions made by both sides, 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, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the complainant should approach the Superintendent of Police in the event of the second 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 could approach the Judicial Magistrate concerned by filing a complaint before him 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 the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate concerned if necessary, after the formality before police, ended against the petitioner. On such filing of the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate concern 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. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (L.A) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Superintendent of Police Kanyakumari District Kanyakumari 2. The Sub Inspector of Police Vadasery Police Station Kanyakumari District Kanyakumari 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai + 1 cc to Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy, Advocate, SR No.2714 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.817 of 2011 24.01.2011 vsg RJ/9.2.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/