1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:23.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17099 of 2011 P.Shanmuga Sundaram ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai. 2. The Inspector General of Police, (South Zone), Madurai. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puliyangudi(Sub-division), Tirunelveli District. 6. The Inspector of Police, Chockampatti Police Station, Kadayanallur(Circle), Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the fourth respondent to register the petitioner's complaint, dated 31.05.2011 under Sections 294(b), 324,341, 506 (ii) of I.P.C. For Petitioner :: Mr.P.MuthuDurai For Respondents :: Mr.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the fourth respondent to register the petitioner's complaint, dated 31.05.2011 under Sections 294(b), 324,341, 506(ii) of I.P.C. 2. Heard Mr.P.Muthudurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that petitioner has given a complaint under Sections 294(b), 324, 341 and 506(ii) of I.P.C against the Inspector of Police, Sernthamaram Police Station namely Felix Suresh Peter for keeping him in illegal custody with the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and departmental action was taken against him and therefore the said Inspector of Police, Felix Suresh Peter on 07.05.2011 at about 6.45 p.m had come with one jeep driver and had threatened the petitioner by showing his gun and also further threatened that he would kill the petitioner, if he prefers another complaint to the Superintendent of Police by showing his gun. He would further submit that the petitioner has given a complaint to all higher police officials regarding the said incident and also regarding the assault taken place on that day i.e on 31.05.2011 and the said complaint is said to be registered by the police. Therefore, he would request the court to issue a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli to register the complaint. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner is said to have given a complaint against the Inspector of Police himself and it is not possible for the Inspector of Police to register the complaint against himself and it is stated that all higher officials were given the copy of the complaint dated 31.05.2011 and therefore, the respondent police cannot be directed to register the complaint. He would also submit that the respondent police will comply with the orders, if any passed by this Court. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the complaint has been lodged against the Inspector of Police for the incident taken place on 07.05.2011 and in a later point of time namely on 31.05.2011, it is stated to have sent to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, the fourth respondent herein. It is no doubt true that the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli is overall incharge for the superintendence of law and order within the said district and he is the authority to direct the subordinates. In the said circumstances, the Superintendent of Police is a right person to look into the matter regarding the complaint given by the petitioner against Felix Suresh Peter, Inspector of Police, Sernthamaram Police Station. The said complaint pending before the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli could be enquired into and if there is any prima facie case made out, the Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli, 4th respondent herein is directed to register the complaint against the said Inspector of Police. If there is no prima face case made out, the said complaint given by the petitioner could be dropped. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not remediless and it must be done within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner is not remediless, the petitioner can 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. It is the discretion of the learned Judicial Magistrate either to take cognizance of the case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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. 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, end against the petitioner. On such filing of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate concerned may either refer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter only the petitioner has to approach this Court, if necessary. Therefore, the petitioner should approach this Court only after exhausting all the processes of law as contemplated. But he had approached this Court without following the procedures mentioned therein and therefore this Court has no other option except to dispose of the petition with the aforesaid observations. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai. 2. The Inspector General of Police, (South Zone) Madurai. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puliyangudi(Sub-division), Tirunelveli District. 6. The Inspector of Police, Chockampatti Police Station, Kadayanallur(Circle), Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Vs ssk/10.01.2012 /8c -3p/- Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17099 of 2011 23.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/