1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1208 of 2011 Palanisamy ... Petitioner Vs. State by 1. The Inspector of Police Ponnamaravathi Police Station Pudukottai Pudukottai District 2. The Superintendent of Police Pudukottai Pudukottai District ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the first respondent to register FIR on the complaint given on 08.01.2011 by the petitioner and to take appropriate action. *** For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to register FIR on the complaint given on 08.01.2011 by the petitioner and to take appropriate action. 2. Heard Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has sustained serious injuries in the occurrence, but, he was made as an accused in yet another case and the complaint given by the petitioner has not been taken on file and it was kept pending. He would further submit that in a case in counter case, the complaint given by the petitioner has also to be registered and to be tried along with the said complaint given against the petitioner also. However, the respondent police is not taking steps to register the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that it is true that it is a case in counter and the real addresser should have been found and accordingly, the case has to be registered. However, he would request the Court to go into the prima facie case contain in the complaint given by the petitioner and to register the complaint if there is any prima facie. 5. Recording the statements of the learned Government Advocte (Crl. Side), this Court is granting one week time either to register the complaint or to drop the case on the basis of the availability of the prima facie case. In such an event of dropping the complaint, the petitioner is not remediless and the petitioner is 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/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Inspector of Police Ponnamaravathi Police Station Pudukottai Pudukottai District 2. The Superintendent of Police Pudukottai Pudukottai District 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Madurai vsg rl/4c – 14.2.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1208 of 2011 01.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/