1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL.O.P.(MD).No.14238 of 2011 M.K.Lakshumikumar :Petitioner Vs. State rep. By:: The Inspector of Police, Madagupatti Police Station, Sivagangai District. : Respondent PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records relating to Crl.M.P.No.2933 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivaganga and the connected unumbered M.P filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga rejected on 19.07.2011 and issue appropriate directions for further investigation of F.I.R No.86 of 2005 by taking on file the records produced by the counsel for the petitioner, by any independent agency other than the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chellappa For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The petitioner is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.86 of 2005 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 379, 427, 448 and 506(ii) of I.P.C r/w 34 of I.P.C. The case was investigated by the respondent police and a negative final report was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivaganga. The learned Judicial Magistrate without issuing notice to the de-facto complainant as mandate by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and another reported in AIR 1985 SC 1285, accepted the final report. As against the order of accepting the final report, the petitioner filed a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C(MD)No.7 of 2006. In which, by order dated 03.12.2010, this Court found fault with the learned Magistrate for having accepted the final report without notice to the de-facto complainant, went on to set aside the order with a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the protest petition if any petition filed by the petitioner. Further, this Court gave a liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate protest petition. 2. Subsequent to the said order, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2933 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivaganga as a protest petition against the final report. The learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 17.06.2011 has passed the following order: "In this petition filed by the petitioner is not disclose and details regarding the allegations against the accused mentioned in the Hon'ble High Court order in Crl.Revision Case (MD)No.7 of 2006 & Crl.M.P.(M.D)No.2887/06 & M.P(MD)No.1/09 dt: 3.12.2010. In this petition there is no narration of the occurrence containing the allegations made by him earlier in the complaint. There is no evidence pointing out by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner and also other materials to make out a prima facie case. Hence the petitioner is directed to file appropriate petition in details as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court." 3. Challenging the same, again the petitioner is before this Court with this petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. side) appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 5. In my considered opinion, the order of the learned Magistrate shows the deliberate dereliction of duty on his part. When there is a direction issued by this court and when there is liberty given by this Court to file a protest petition with a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the same, the learned Magistrate ought to have entertained the petition and dealt with the same in accordance with law. Instead of that, the learned Magistrate has simply directed the petitioner to file an appropriate petition in detail. I am unable to understand that as to what the learned Judicial Magistrate has meant by stating "appropriate petition". A protest petition has been filed as directed by this Court rightly. If the learned Judicial Magistrate feels that this petition is not an appropriate petition, then I am of the considered opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not discharged his function properly. In any event, I am of the view, it will not be appropriate for this Court to make any more comments against the learned Judicial Magistrate. All my comments pertain only to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. I am of the view that at least after this order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, will properly look into the matter and deal with the same in accordance with law. 6. In such view of the matter, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.06.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.2933 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivaganga, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivaganga, who shall consider the protest petition strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR pm To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivaganga. 2.The Inspector of Police, Madagupatti Police Station, Sivagangai District. 3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. DM::2011:NOVEMBER:18:: ORDER MADE IN CRL.O.P.(MD).No.14238 of 2011 2p:4c:: 09.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/