1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL.O.P.(MD).No.15173 of 2011 Smt.M.Mariam Shaliha : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Director, The Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondents to take necessary action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 09.06.2011 within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.Rozario Sundarraj, S.P.P. For CBI Cases O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take necessary action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 09.06.2011 within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.Rozario Sundarraj, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the complaint given by the petitioner to the respondents was not registered. Hence, he requests this Court that the 2nd respondent may be directed to hold an enquiry and to register a case accordingly. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the complaint will be taken and it will be enquired into and if any prima facie case is made out, the said complaint would be registered and the investigation would also be commenced. 5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for R2 would submit in his argument that suitable orders may be passed. 6. Considering the submissions made by on either side, this Court is inclined to direct the 1st respondent to go into the allegations made in the complaint and to issue suitable directions to any of his subordinates, to find out the prima facie case and if for any reason, there is no prima facie case made out, it is for the 1st respondent to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 drop the complaint and the petitioner cannot seek a direction of this Court to register a complaint. 7. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not remediless. This Court could see that the relief sought for by the petitioner for registration of the complaint has been dealt with by 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 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 the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to 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 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. 8. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of, after dismissing the petition against the 2nd respondent. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Director, The Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Arul GH : 16.12.2011 : 2p/4c ORDER MADE IN CRL.O.P.(MD).No.15173 of 2011 02.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/