1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:07.09.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD).No.717 of 2011 K.Kuppusamy :Petitioner -Vs- 1.Saravanan, now working as Inspector of Police, Thirupathur Taluk Circle, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District. 2.Subramanian, now working as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Nilakottai Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.Jeyakumar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police (Retd), Near Keeranur Police Station, Keeranur, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. :Respondents Prayer:Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in Crl.M.P.No.1205 of 2009 dated 30.08.2010. For Petitioner : M/s.D.Venkatesh ORDER This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in Crl.M.P.No.1205 of 2009, dated 30.08.2010. 2.The petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.1205 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. It is the private complaint filed against the respondents. On perusal of the materials and the statements of witnesses, the Court below has taken cognizance against the respondents 1 to 4. However, the Court has refused to take cognizance as against the respondents 5 to 7, who are the police personnel, by observing that there is no prima facie materials available against the respondents 5 to 7. Against this order refusing to take cognizance against the accused Nos.5 to 7, the present revision has been filed. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that prima facie materials are available in the complaint and also spoken by P.W.1, the father of the complainant and hence, there is no impediment to take cognizance against A5 to A7. 4.The complainant in this case was not examined before the Court below. His parents P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and their statements were recorded. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The allegation against A5 - Sub Inspector of Police is that he advised 1 to 4 accused how to get relieved from the action to be taken by the complainant. The fifth and sixth accused are alleged to have given wrong intimation to the Public Prosecutor in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12023 of 2007 which is the petition praying for transfer of investigation to C.B.C.I.D. Seventh accused is alleged to have suppressed material factors in the written complaint made by him on the basis of the statement given by father of the complainant on the guidance of fifth accused. 6.With the above said allegations narrated against A5 to A7 in the private complaint, the complainant has ignored the witness box. None of the witnesses has stated about this allegation against A5 to A7 in the statements. If it is so, there can be no materials much less prima facie materials available before the Court to take cognizance against A4 to A7. 7.In the considered view of this Court since there is no materials available as against A5 to A7 excepting the allegations in the private complaint, which are also not based on proper particulars, the refusal on the part of the Court below to take cognizance against A5 to A7 is not wrong. There is no infirmity factually and legally in the order passed by the Court below. 8.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in Crl.M.P.No.1205 of 2009, dated 30.08.2010. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. +1CC to Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate. SR.No.30312. Akv RP/03.10.2011/2P/3C. Crl.R.C.(MD).No.717 of 2011 07.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/