IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.12718 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 1. G. Venkatachalam 2. Vellappan 3. Kailasam 4. Vijayakumar 5. R. Chinaiva 6. M. Rangasamy 7. C. Jayakumar .. Petitioners Versus Soundraraja Pandian .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam not to proceed with the trial without issuing the copy of the complaint in C.C.No.391 of 2004 on his file. For Petitioners : M/s. K.Kalyanasundaram For Respondent : Mr. B.R.Shankaralingam O R D E R The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners to direct the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam not to proceed with the trial without issuing the copy of the complaint in C.C.No.391 of 2004 on his file. 2. The petitioners/accused 1,3 to 8 have filed the above Criminal Original Petition to direct the learned Magistrate to furnish the copy of the complaint in C.C.No.391 of 2004. 3. The petitioners submitted that the respondent's case is that on 12.02.1990, when he was away on business purpose, the petitioners along with others trespassed in his property, took away his property worth Rs.70,000/- and also threatened his wife. Hence, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the complainant filed a private complaint before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.208 of 1995. After investigation, the police filed a final report on 02.02.1997, referring the case as 'mistake of facts'. The learned Magistrate accepted the same and closed the case. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition in CMP.No.2309 of 2004 to set aside the order of RCS and reopen the case. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that since the RCS was recorded without giving notice to the complainant, the learned Magistrate reopened the case and directed the complainant to produce the witnesses. The learned Magistrate, after taking sworn statement of the complainant, issued summons to the petitioners and as such they are facing the criminal case. 4. The petitioners further submitted that they have made several averments in their petition to counter the complaint. Further, the petitioners submitted that there is civil and criminal cases also pending between both the parties. Regarding the dispute, the respondent filed a private complaint in C.C.No.140 of 1990 before the learned Magistrate against "SIDCO" Officials. The case was dismissed and the accused were acquitted. Thereafter, the respondent had filed Criminal Appeal before this Honourable Court. 5. The "SIDCO" Officials filed a suit in O.S.No.216 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Coimbatore, against the respondent. The respondent had also filed a suit in O.S.No.382 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Coimbatore against the "SIDCO" Officials. Both cases have been disposed of. Against both suits, appeals are filed. So, there are several disputes between "SIDCO" Officials, the petitioners and the respondent. In the concerned case, in the private complaint filed by the respondent, a copy of the complaint has not been furnished to the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application for issuance of the certified copy of the complaint , but the Magistrate gave them a report filed by the Inspector of Police, Sirumugai, stating that the petition of the complainant could not be traced. The petitioners were subsequently informed that the copy of the complaint is not available in the records of the Court. Further, the petitioners submitted that they are entitled to a copy of the complaint and without furnishing the complaint copy, Criminal Case cannot be proceeded with. Hence, the petitioners have filed the above direction petition. 6. After considering the contents of the petition and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get the complaint copy of the complainant. As such, the Court directs the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, to furnish the copy of the complaint to the petitioners. If the copy of the complaint is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not available, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, may give direction to the respondent/complainant to furnish the copy of the complaint or the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, may get necessary copy application and furnish the certified copy of the complaint. The Court is constrained to point out to the parties concerned and the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, that the time of the Court is valuable and meant for public welfare and has to be utilised in a proper way. 7. With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. Crl.O.P.No.12718 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 GGK (CO) RH (14.12.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/