Mr.Pakthavachalam vs Kathijabegam

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records and set aside the order dated 15.07.2025 in M.P.No.2 of 2024 in C.M.P.No.86 of 2024 passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District

The case of the petitioner is that accused Nos.1 to 7, in conspiracy with one another, allegedly created three unfilled promissory notes belonging to the petitioner and his wife and, by using the same, cheated them. Though the petitioner's wife lodged a complaint on 15.11.2023, no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged complaints before the Superintendent of Police on 06.12.2023 and 12.12.2023 under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.; however, no effective action was taken. Hence, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by filing C.M.P.No.26 of 2024. On 29.01.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District, directed the respondent police to register a case, observing that the alleged offence had occurred within its jurisdiction and that a prima facie case was made out. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 06.03.2024. The enquiry was thereafter adjourned to 13.03.2024. Though the petitioner again appeared before the respondent on 13.03.2024, the respondent neither conducted an enquiry nor examined the petitioner or the first accused and thereby, according to the petitioner, failed to comply with the directions of the learned Magistrate. Hence, the petitioner filed a contempt petition. He also filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking production of the General Diary and CCTV footage to establish the actual events that transpired at the police station. The learned Magistrate partly allowed the said application by directing the respondent to produce the General Diary, but dismissed the prayer seeking production of the CCTV footage. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accused persons had conspired together and created three unfilled promissory notes belonging to the petitioner and his wife and used the same to create a false impression in the banking transactions, with an intention to swindle money and obtain a favourable order from the Court, thereby cheating the petitioner and his wife. On 15.11.2023, the petitioner's wife lodged a complaint before the first respondent; however, no action was taken. Thereafter, on 06.12.2023, the petitioner personally lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken. Subsequently, on 12.12.2023, the petitioner sent a complaint by post to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., which was acknowledged on 13.12.2023. Despite the same, no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to register the FIR. The learned Magistrate directed the respondent police to register the case, and the said order was forwarded to the respondent police. Pursuant thereto, the respondent issued a summons to the petitioner directing him to appear on 06.03.2024. The petitioner appeared on the said date, and the enquiry was thereafter adjourned to 13.03.2024.

It is the further case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the direction of the respondent, he appeared before the respondent on 13.03.2024, at which time the first accused was also present. However, the respondent did not conduct any enquiry and thereby, according to the petitioner, violated the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the respondent to produce the General Diary and CCTV footage before the learned Magistrate, so as to ascertain the actual proceedings and the events that transpired at the police station. The learned Magistrate partly allowed the application by directing the respondent to produce the General Diary, but dismissed the prayer insofar as it related to the production of CCTV footage, which, according to the petitioner, was essential to establish the movement and presence of the persons at the police station.

A complaint was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon considering the complaint and the materials placed along with it, the learned Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the respondent police with a direction to investigate the alleged offence and file a final report at the earliest.

It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that, despite the said direction, the respondent neither conducted an enquiry nor examined the petitioner and the accused, thereby failed to comply with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in C.M.P.No.86 of 2024. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking production of the General Diary maintained at the police station and the CCTV footage pertaining to the dates on which the petitioner and the accused were called for enquiry. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, partly allowed the said application and, pursuant thereto, the respondent produced the General Diary of the Paramathi Police Station. However, insofar as the prayer for production of CCTV footage for the period from 07.03.2024 to 18.03.2024 is concerned, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application without assigning any reasons.

It is significant to note that even the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, has not been stated whether the CCTV footage for the aforesaid period is available or not, or for what reason the same could not be produced before the Court. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has not stated any specific reason for seeking production of the CCTV footage.

The specific contention of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation, the respondent failed to conduct the investigation in accordance with the said order. In order to establish the alleged non-compliance with the order of the learned Magistrate and the failure of the respondent to conduct the enquiry/investigation, the petitioner sought production of the General Diary and CCTV footage pertaining to the relevant dates by filing an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

Since the learned Judicial Magistrate has already partly allowed the application and the General Diary pertaining to 01.03.2024, 06.03.2024, 07.03.2024, 12.03.2024 and 14.03.2024 has been produced, the petitioner is at liberty to rely upon the same in accordance with law.

However, with regard to the CCTV footage for the period from 07.03.2024 to 18.03.2024, the respondent has not stated anything as to its availability or otherwise. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that, in the interest of justice, the respondent may be directed to produce the CCTV footage pertaining to the period from 07.03.2024 to 18.03.2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, on the next hearing date, if the same is available with the respondent.

In view of the foregoing, the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2024 in C.M.P.No.86 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District, is set aside. The respondent is directed to produce the CCTV footage pertaining to the period from 07.03.2024 to 18.03.2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District, if the same is available.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.