IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl. R.C.No.1148 of 2009 G.Ravikumar .... Petitioner Vs. 1.Nagappan S/o.Kannan 2.Sudha W/o.Nagappan 3.Kiliyammal W/o.Nagappan 4.Thangasamy S/o.Mayan 5.Govindaraj S/o.Murugan 6.Ramesh S/o.Ramu 7.Mahalingam, S/o.Rasu 8.Leelavathi, D/o.Rajamanickam, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nannilam, Tiruvarur District. ... Respondents Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 25.05.2009 made in C.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur. For petitioner : Mr.M.Thamizhavel ORDER Challenging the order of dismissal made under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has come up with this criminal revision. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: On the complaint by the 1st respondent Mr.Nagappan, a case in Cr.No.3 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 417, 493, 376 and 294(b) of IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act was registered by the 8th respondent, who was the then Inspector https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Police, All Women Police Station, Nannilam, Tiruvarur District against the petitioner. According to the allegations in the said FIR, the petitioner, by seducing the 2nd respondent herein, who is the 1st daughter of the 1st respondent, aged 16 years, had sexual intercourse with her, which resulted in delivery of a male child on 13.01.2006. On completing the investigation, the 8th respondent filed a final report against the petitioner, which, on committal was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in S.C.No.2 of 2007. The respondents 1, 2, 5 to 8 deposed as P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 8, 4 & 14 respectively before the trial Court, apart from few official witnesses. Besides the petitioner there were two more accused. The defence of the petitioner was that he was innocent and he never committed offences for which he was charge sheeted. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by judgement dated 31.07.2007 acquitted the petitioner and the other accused. The said acquittal has become final. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the respondents herein alleging that the above case had been falsely foisted against him by the respondents 1 to 8 and during trial of the said case too, in support of the false charges they falsely deposed before the Court. Alleging that the said act of the respondents would amount to offences under Sections 182, 194, 201 212, 115 and 120(B) of IPC, he filed the private complaint. On taking cognizance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to record the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 201 of the Code. As many as 8 witnesses were examined and 65 documents were exhibited. Having considered all the above, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the private complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The said order is under challenge in this revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records carefully. 5. According to the allegations in the complaint, the accused 4 to 7, who are villagers, forced the respondents 1 to 3 to make statements to the police as though the petitioner was responsible for the pregnancy of P.W.2. The complaint further proceeds to say that the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and the child born to P.W.2 were subjected to D.N.A. Test and the report of the D.N.A. Test dated 12.07.2006 would show that the petitioner is not the biological father of the child. From this, according to the petitioner, it would be crystal clear that he is innocent. But, by suppressing the said report, the petitioner was prosecuted, it is alleged. 6. It is further contended by the petitioner that at the time when the 2nd respondent was admitted to the hospital for delivery, her mother had informed the Doctor that one Sakthivel was the father of the child. These things, according to the petitioner, would go to show that the respondents have committed offences as alleged in the private complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Having considered the materials on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has concluded that the statements recorded from the witnesses and the documents did not clearly make out any offence to issue summons to the respondents. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has pointed out that though it is true that the D.N.A. Report would show that the petitioner is not the biological father of the child born to the 2nd respondent, the charge-sheet was laid not only on the basis of the said report, but also on the basis of the statements made under Section 161 of the Code and the other materials collected during the investigation. Therefore, according to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, non production of D.N.A. Report would not amount to an offence under Section 201 of IPC 8. A perusal of the judgement of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in S.C.No.2 of 2007 would go to show that the petitioner and two other accused were acquitted only by giving the benefit of doubt. Mainly, the acquittal was because of the contradictions found in the evidence of P.W.2 (the 2nd respondent herein) and the statement made by her mother to the Doctor on the earlier occasion about the name of the father of the child. These findings, which culminated in the acquittal of the accused, would not go to either indicate or establish that the petitioner is innocent. There is a world of difference between declaration that an individual is innocent and acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, submit that the first information report given by the 1st respondent herein to the police, which resulted in registration of the case, would amount to an offence punishable under Section 182 of IPC. Similarly, the deposition given by the respondents before the Court would amount to giving false evidence which is punishable under Section 194 of IPC. 10. In my considered opinion, there is no such factual finding given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the Sessions Case either that the complaint was false or that the evidences given by the respondents 1, 2, 5 to 8 were false. Assuming that there is some substance in the said argument, in view of the bar contained in Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court can not take cognizance of the offences under Sections 182 and 194 of IPC without there being a complaint made by the Court. 11. In respect of the offence said to have been committed under Section 201 of IPC, the allegation is that the D.N.A. Report was not placed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In my considered opinion, it would not fall within the ambit of Section 201 of Code. 12. Insofar as offence under Section 212 of IPC is concerned, there is no allegation that any offender was harboured. Regarding the offence under Section 115 of IPC, absolutely, there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is no allegation that there was any abetment. Thus, I find that there is no material on record for offences under Section 201, 212, 115 and 120(B) of IPC. 13. As far as offences punishable under Sections 182 and 194 of IPC are concerned, as I have already pointed out, under Section 194 of the Code, there is a clear bar to take cognizance and to proceed further acting on the complaint on a private individual. In my considered opinion, apart from the ground on which the complaint was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on certain other grounds also, as discussed above, the complaint deserves only to be dismissed. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was right in dismissing the complaint. 14. In the result, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kmk To The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur 1 cc To Mr.M.Thamizhavel, Advocate, SR.3002 Crl.R.C. No.1148 of 2009 BVR(CO) sra 29.01.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/