1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15551 of 2011 S.Rajagopal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli city, tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Palam Police Station, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 04.05.2011 preferred by the petitioner and to take action against the accused in accordance with law. For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondents :: Mr.P.Kannaithevan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 04.05.2011 preferred by the petitioner and to take action against the accused in accordance with law. 2. Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannaithevan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents/State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the complaint given by the petitioner to the respondents was not registered. Hence, he requests this Court that the 2nd respondent may be directed to hold an enquiry and to register a case accordingly. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the complaint given by the petitioner was treated as petition and the same was closed on 17.07.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not remediless. 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). 6.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 and 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. 7. 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 the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter only, the petitioner has to approach this Court, if necessary, only after exhausting all the process of law as contemplated. But, in the present case, the petitioner 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. 8. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli city,Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police,Palam Police Station, Tirunelveli. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Advocate, SR.No.42016 arul rl/5c – 9.12.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15551 of 2011 29.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/