1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 10.02.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice C.T.SELVAM Crl.RC.(MD).No.68 of 2011 D.Malaichamy .. Petitioner/Complainant vs. 1. Rajendran(Age 50 years), Whose Father's name not known, Presently working as Inspector of Police (L&O), Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai-20. 2. Esthar(Age 35 years), Whose Father's name not known, Presently working as Sub Inspector of Police (L&O), Anna Nagar Policce Station, Madurai-20. .. Respondents/Accused Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 10.12.2010 passed in Cr.M.P.No.1398 of 2010, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ilangovan For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Govt. Advocate (crl. side) *** O R D E R The order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in dismissing the complaint in Cr.M.P.No.1398 of 2010 is under challenge herein. 2. The complaint has been preferred against two police personnel informing that though under complaint dated 12.08.2010, the petitioner, who is an advocate, had specifically mentioned one Raju and another person as involved in the attack on him, the respondents as police officials, have registered the case in Cr.No.2214 of 2010, on the file of the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai on 12.08.2010, only against two persons, who actually assaulted the de-facto complainant/petitioner. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents as police personnel have failed to do their duty as expected of them in keeping with law and therefore have to face prosecution under Sections 166, 217 and 218 I.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai dismissed the complaint holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that no prima facie case is made out. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the circular issued by this Court in ROC No.1062/2003/F1, dated 03.09.1960, which informs that the complaint against police personnel ought to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. He would inform that the lower Court had observed that the sworn statement of none other than the de-facto complainant was recorded whereas the statement of one other person was recorded. 6. Taking into account the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire papers, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the lower Court. Action is sought to be taken, since the persons against whom the petitioner is enemically disposed, have not been arrayed as accused in Cr.No.2214 of 2010. The material available is very sketchy and the sworn statement appears to be self serving in nature. We are afraid that if such prosecution is to be allowed, police personnel will not be able to go about their task fearlessly and independently. For the above said reasons, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (L.A) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.A.Ilangovan, Advocate, SR No.5343 Crl.RC.(MD).No.68 of 2011 10.02.2011 ssl RJ/16.3.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/