IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 09.09.2009 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. No.14875 of 2009 Pachaiappan Veerappan ... Petitioner/Complianant vs. 1.M.A. Sirajuddin 2.T.Anandha Krishnan ... Respondents/Accused Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For R-2 : Mr.M.R.Thangavel, for P.P., Pucucherry. O R D E R The petitioner herein seeks to set aside the order, dated 16.04.2009, passed in unnumbered calendar case of 2009 by the Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Yanam. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the private complaint preferred against the respondents for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. was straightaway dismissed by the trial court without assigning any valid reason and submits that the learned Magistrate, at the first instance, ought to have recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, examined the witnesses, conducted an enquiry and thereafter come to a conclusion. According to him, the order impugned does not reflect recording of sworn statement from the complainant and examination of the witnesses; thus, the same is illegal and liable to be interfered with. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor, Puducherry, has pointed out that the petitioner was transferred on administrative reasons as he was working in the same place for six years and aggrieved by the order of transfer, he preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same is under challenge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. I have perused the materials available on record with reference to the submissions made on either side. When a complaint is preferred before a Judicial Magistrate, having regard to the procedure adumbrated in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is incumbent on his part to record the sworn statement of the complainant and also the statement of the witnesses available and only thereafter, he can, by assessing the same and applying judicial mind, come to a conclusion one way or the other. In the case on hand, it appears that such procedure has not been adhered to, therefore, the ultimate order is liable to be set aside. 5. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the calendar case to his file and proceed with the same as per the procedure laid down in the Code. JI. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1. The Subordinate Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Yanam. 2. -do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry 3. The Public Prosecutor Pondicheery. + 1 cc to Mr. S. Doraisamy Advocate SR.45612 Crl.O.P. No.14875/2009. SP(CO) EU 9.10.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/