1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition (MD)No.950 of 2011 Murugan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State through Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai District. 2.A.Kuluchami. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to dispose of the complaint dated 13.05.2010 given by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, seeking for a direction to be issued to the 1st respondent in accordance with law. For Appellant : Mr.C.Padmaraj For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan, Govt. Advocate( Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner against whom a complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent as defacto complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and which was referred by the said Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.6743 of 2010 and pending before the 1st respondent police. 2. Heard Mr.C.Padmaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State. Since there is no adverse order is passed against the 2nd respondent, no notice is ordered to the 2nd respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has not involved in the offence and therefore, a direction may be issued to the 1st respondent police to dispose of the complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent dated 13.05.2010, referred by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the 1st respondent has received the complaint from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and he shall register the complaint and do the investigation in accordance with law. He would further submit in his argument that if any prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, it would be investigated and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet will be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate and if there is no case made out against the petitioner, the same will be closed as 'Mistake of Fact'. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the petitioner is shown to be an accused in the complaint given by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, which has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, immediately after being referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Cr.M.P.No.6743 of 2010 to the 1st respondent and the same is pending for registration of the case. 6. According to the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) the complaint of the 2nd respondent would be registered as F.I.R. and the same will be investigated further and necessary action will be taken in accordance with law either to file a charge sheet or to refer the complaint as 'Mistake of Fact' depending upon the truthness of the allegation made therein. 7. In such circumstances, this Court is disposing of the criminal original petition after recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (criminal side). Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.C.Padmaraj, Advocate (SR.No.3266) Crl.O.P(MD) No.950 of 2011 27.01.2011 arul NSV/8.2.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/