This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order, dated 10.08.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.5484 of 2016 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Shenkottai.

2. The petitioner/complainant has filed a petition U/s 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Shenkottai on 25.04.2016 as against the respondents herein. The relief sought for in the petition is that a case to be registered as against the respondents herein based on his complaint dated 14.02.2016 by the Inspector of Police, Atchanpudur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) , 395 and 506(ii) of IPC.

3. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Shenkottai, has dismissed the Cr.M.P.No.5484 of 2016 vide the order impugned, dated 10.08.2016 on the ground that no material witnesses have been produced by the petitioner. Hence, he has preferred the instant criminal revision case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/10 RC(MD)No. 707 of 2016

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons assigned by the Court below in dismissing the private complaint by the petitioner is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He further submitted that the facts as adduced in the private complaint have made out the offences, but the Court below failed to allow the same and consequently dismissed the private complaint. He further submitted that the offences committed by the respondents would squarely come under the ambit of various offences. He further submitted that the other reasons given by the Court below in dismissing the said private complaint is unsound and unsustainable in law. Therefore, he prays for allowing this petition.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material documents available on record.

6.It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the cultivating tenant of agricultural land in S.No.330/2, 332/1 and 239/1 totally to an extent of 1.33 ½ acres. The said land originally belonged to one Sheik Mohammed and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land as cultivating tenant for the past six years and the proceedings for record of tenancy is pending. While the paddy crops of the petitioner was about to harvest, the first respondent at the instigation of the respondents 2 to 5, preferred a false complaint against the petitioner, as such the petitioner was away from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/10 RC(MD)No. 707 of 2016 village for getting anticipatory bail and taking advantage of absence of the petitioner, the respondents trespassed into the agricultural land and harvested the crops illegally on 10.02.2016. The said occurrence was witnessed by one Amanullah, Ismail and Syed Ali. Eventhough they advised the respondents to take away the paddy. Subsequently, after obtaining anticipatory bail, the petitioner went to the agricultural land on 14.02.2016 and found the damage worth about Rs.50,000/-. When he enquired the same with the respondents on 14.02.2016 at 12.00 p.m near Vadakarai VAO office, they scolded the petitioner in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequence. Therefore, the petitioner gave a complaint before the Atchanpudur Police. Since the Atchanpudur Police did not evoke any response, the petitioner sent a complaint through registered post on 28.03.2016 and the same was received by the Atchanpudur Police on 29.03.2016 even that was no response. Hence, he sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 05.04.2016 and the same was delivered on 06.04.2016; however, that was also not taken into consideration. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.5484 of 2016 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Shenkottai under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate without proper appreciation of complaint and the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the same on 10.08.2016. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred this revision.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/10 RC(MD)No. 707 of 2016

7.The revision petitioner was examined himself and two others on his side. In this revision, eventhough notice was served on the respondents, no one is appeared before this Court.

8. The ingredients of Section 156(3) is extracted here under:

9.P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined on the side of the petitioner are alleged to be eye witnesses. As per their evidence, the respondents came to the petitioner's field and harvested the grains on the occurrence day. On that day, the petitioner/complainant was not present. They also produced copy of the photographs. It prima facie reveals that there was an occurrence. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/10 RC(MD)No. 707 of 2016 Thereafter, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Atchanpudur Police Station and the Superintendent of Police and also filed acknowledgment card along with his complaint. It is the duty of police, once a complaint given to them, the police officials should register an FIR and then investigate. If no material found in the investigation, the police officials may close the complaint as otherwise. But the police officials did not register the case on the basis of the complaint given by the revision petitioner. So, the revision petitioner/complainant filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

10.The relevant portion of the Judgment reported in ( 2010) 8 SCC 206, Srinivas Gundluri and Others Vs. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation and Others , is extracted hereunder:

11.The relevant portion of the judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 1877, Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau Vs. State of Gujarat , is extracted hereunder:-

12.The revision petitioner/complainant examined three witnesses. He cannot collect all the evidences. Only the police officials can collect the evidences. If an investigation is done, the police could not find any material, he can very well close the First Information Report. So, prima facie, the revision petitioner/complainant made out a cognizable case. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate ought to have directed the police to register an FIR and to investigate the matter instead of dismissing the complaint under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

13.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Shenkottai, in Cr.M.P.No.5484 of 2016, dated 10.08.2016 is hereby set aside.

Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/10 RC(MD)No. 707 of 2016 S.ANANTHI, J.

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Shenkottai.

2. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Order made in Crl.RC(MD)No. 707 of 2016 09.07.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/10