1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.186 of 2011 A.Subba ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Thanjavur. ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 05.02.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.7162 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER By consent, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the F.I.R. in Crime No.587 of 2010 dated 08.10.2010 and would submit that the Village Administrative Officer has lodged a complaint with regard to the distribution of television set and the said complaint is false and concocted and in fact the revision petitioner has also lodged a complaint in Crime No.606 of 2010 which was registered by the Sub-Inspector of West Police Station, Thanjavur on 20.10.2010. As per the complaint in Crime No.606 of 2010, the petitioner was standing in the queue to receive the free television, which was distributed by the Government of Tamil Nadu and she has made a complaint that they were distributing televisions only to the persons known to the officials and enraged by the same, she was ill-treated and also beaten by the concerned accused. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case in Crime No.606 of 2010 after investigation, was referred as "Mistake of Fact" and she has filed a protest petition and the said protest petition came to be dismissed on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the said complaint. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons assigned in the impugned order on the face of it are unsustainable for the reason that since the complaint was not taken on file, she was constrained to send a complaint through registered post and hence, the delay had occurred. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the question of delay in lodging the F.I.R. can be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 gone into only during the course of trial and therefore, the reasons assigned by the lower Court for rejecting the protest petition are not at all proper and hence, prayed for setting aside the order. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the antecedents of the revision petitioner are bad and in fact she only threatened the Government Officials with dire consequences, which lead to the registration of Crime No.587 of 2010 and as a counter- blast to the said case, she has given a false complaint in Crime No.606 of 2010 and hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. The Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 6. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the protest petition came to be dismissed primarily on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint. According to the F.I.R. in Crime No.606 of 2010, the alleged occurrence took place on 08.10.2010 and the complaint came to be lodged on 20.10.2010. 7. In the considered opinion of the Court, the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a reason to reject the protest petition and the lower Court has to see whether the investigation done by the Investigating agency was proper and the statement recorded during investigation establish a prima facie case for filing the final report. As the reasons assigned by the trial Court are not in order, the Court is inclined to set aside the order. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the order dated 05.02.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.7162 of 2010 is set aside and it is once again remanded to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur for fresh consideration. 8. The observation made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this revision and the lower Court need not be influenced by this observation as the case is adjudicated only based on quality of the materials available on record. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police,West Police Station,Thanjavur. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. +1cc to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate SR.No.19329 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.186 of 2011 20.06.2011 akv PA/06.07.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/