1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.511 of 2011 E.Paramasundari ... Petitioner Vs. State rep. by 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Temple Police Station, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to issue a direction directing the second respondent to register the F.I.R. based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 25.10.2010 and to investigate the same in accordance with law. For Petitioner :: Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai For Respondents :: Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to register the F.I.R. based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 25.10.2010 and to investigate the same. 2. Heard Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complaint given by the petitioner to the respondents was not registered. Hence, he requests this Court that the respondents may be directed to hold an enquiry and to register a case accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner, after giving the complaint, did not appear before the second respondent police and the second respondent police has to go through the prima facie case after gathering particulars and if the petitioner is appeared before the second respondent police and prima facie case would be found out, the complaint would be registered. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to appear before the second respondent police and to submit herself for enquiry regarding the prima facie case on or before 27.01.2011 and on such enquiry, the respondents are directed to find out prima facie case if any and register the case and if for any reason there is no prima facie case is made out, it is for the respondent police to close the petition. However, the petitioner is not remediless in the case it has been closed and the petitioner is always entitled to proceed in accordance with law as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC) equivalent to the judgment reported in 2007 (4) Crimes 338 (SC). According to the said judgment, the complainant should approach the Superintendent of Police in the event of the second respondent police failed to proceed with the registration of the complaint and on the failure of the Superintendent of Police to pass any order under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant should 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 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, ended against the petitioner. On such filing of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate concerned may either refer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter only the petitioner to approach this Court, if necessary. Therefore, the petitioner should approach this Court only after exhausting all the process of law as contemplated. But he had approached this Court without following the procedures mentioned therein and therefore this Court has no other option to dispose the petition with the aforesaid observations. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Temple Police Station, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +One Cc to Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, Advocate, SR.No.1756 smn rl/5c – 20.01.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.511 of 2011 18.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/