1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.223 of 2011 1.S.Abdul Rahman 2.Smt.A.R.Hasina Banu ... Revision Petitioner Vs. 1.Mariammal 2.Balaji 3.Premchandar 4.Syed Samsudeen ... Respondents Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.599 of 2009 dated 16.12.2010, by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. For petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan O R D E R The revision petitioners are the permanent residents of K.K. Nagar, Madurai and they are eking out their livelihood by leasing out Plot No.317, Banu Plaza Complex, Anna Nagar, Madurai – 20. In the year 2003, Shop No.5 was leased in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 for non-residential purpose. It was represented by the accused that they incurred loss and they could not continue to run the shop and therefore, requested the revision petitioners to pay the balance advance amount after adjusting the rent payable to them and they also undertakes to vacate the premises. However, when the revision petitioners requested them to receive the balance advance amount and vacate the premises, the accused had gone to the extent of threatening the revision petitioners to sign a fresh lease agreement. In this regard, the petitioners originally lodged a complaint on the file of the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City and since it was not taken cognizance, they approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P. (MD) No.8313 of 2008 and as per the direction given by this Court a case in Crime No.2401 of 2009 was registered as against the accused and the said case after investigation was closed as mistake of facts, after service of R.C. Notice. Thereafter, challenging the vires of the same, the revision petitioners filed Crl.R.C.(MD) No.252 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 06.04.2010 set aside the said order and remanded the matter once again to the jurisdictional magistrate for reconsideration of the same. Accordingly, the case was reopened on behalf of the revision petitioners the 1st revision petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 along with two other witnesses. 2. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking into consideration the submissions of the 1st revision petitioner and two other witnesses found that the complaint was given much belatedly and the submissions of the 1st revision petitioner was not supported by the other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 two witnesses and therefore, found that no prima-facie case has been made out as against the accused and therefore, dismissed the petition in Cr.M.P.No.599 of 2009 filed by the revision petitioners under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. on 16.03.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that since the incident took place inside the police Station, no other witnesses have chance to see the occurrence and the Court below has committed a grave error in dismissing the petition without proper appreciation of the statements given by the witnesses. 4. This Court after careful consideration of the rival submissions and the materials available on record is of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners lacks merit. 5. A perusal of the typed set of papers and the impugned order would disclose that the occurrence is said to have been taken place on 20.12.2007 and after six months, petition was filed on 18.05.2009 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the said case after investigation, has culminated into negative charge sheet and after service of referred notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Court and therefore, the report was accepted and the case was closed as mistake of fact. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.R.C.No.252 of 2010, which was allowed by this Court and the lower Court was directed once again to hear the representation of the petitioners and accordingly, the 1st petitioner was examined so also two other witnesses. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai found that the testimony of P.W.1 was not supported by the other two witnesses. The lower Court further found that the complaint was lodged belatedly and there was no prima-facie case made out in favour of the revision petitioners to take cognizance of the complaint in exercise of its power under Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code. 6. This Court finds there is no illegality or infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the lower Court. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. If the revision petitioners are so advised, they can work out their remedy in accordance with law before appropriate forums. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR sj To: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. DM:2011::APRIL:07::: Order in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.223 of 2011 2P:2C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/