AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice M. Venugopal
The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 27.03.2012, in Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012 in Crime No. 1777 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil, while passing the order in Cr. M.P. No. 335 of 2012 on 27.03.2012, has observed that "Cr. M.P. is dismissed with liberty to file private complaint by the petitioner and F.I.R. is accordingly closed."
Feeling dissatisfied by the said order passed in Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 567 of 2012 on 27.03.2012, by the trial Court, the Revision Petitioner/Defacto Complainant, as an aggrieved person has focussed the instant Revision Petition before this Court.
According to the Petitioner/Defacto Complainant, one Smitha and her husband Mathan asked her to join in a registered chit conducted by one Thangam. They also asked her to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month for about 25 months and also said that receipt will be issued for each payment. The Petitioner joined the chit and paid the amount in her favour, her son, daughter and their two children.
The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the month of February, the Petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the first chit and the said Smitha and Mathan received the amount from her and the said Thangam contacted the Petitioner through phone. It appears that the Petitioner has paid Rs. 60,000/- for the period from 05.02.2011 to 05.07.2011. One of the chit was given in her favour. But the said persons failed to give the chit amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner. They also deceived her and failed to issue receipts as to the proof of payment. When the Petitioner repeatedly demanded the said amount, the said Mathan trespassed into the house of the Petitioner and threatened her to kill her with knife. Moreover, he also used filthy language and threatened that if she demanded the chit amount, he would kill her.
The Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner made a complaint to the Respondent on 19.07.2011. But the Respondent/Police failed to register a case based on her complaint. As such, she made a representation to the Superintendent of Police on 29.07.2011. Even after the receipt of the same, the Superintendent of Police had not taken any steps to register a case. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No. 5783 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. On 04.08.2011, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil directed the respondent/police to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 19.07.2011.
The Respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No. 1777 of 2011, dated 09.08.2011, under Sections 294(b), 420, 448 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and u/s 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. It is the case of the petitioner that though the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil has directed the Respondent/Police to register a case based on the complaint of the Petitioner dated 19.07.2011, the Respondent/Police has registered a case based on the petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. Also, the petitioner and other witnesses have not been examined and their statements u/s 161(3) of Cr.P.C. have not been recorded. Also, the money has not been recovered. One Thangam''s name has been left out in the F.I.R. and that Mathan''s name has been included in the F.I.R.
The Petitioner sent a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District on 17.08.2011 to take action against the erring police officials and also to monitor the said case. But no action has been taken against the said representation. As such, the Petitioner has been forced to file a petition before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil on 24.08.2011 in Crl.M.P. No. 6141 of 2011 to monitor the investigation of the case in Crime No. 1777 of 2011. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner informs that Crl.M.P. No. 1777 of 2011 is pending on the file of the trial Court. Finally, the Respondent/Police has closed the case in Crime No. 1777 of 2011 as mistake of fact.
The stand of the Petitioner/Defacto Complainant is that the case has been closed as mistake of fact without proper investigation and the Respondent/Police filed a referred charge sheet before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. Resultantly, the Petitioner has been constrained to file a Protest Petition before the trail Court against the referred Charge Sheet. He has also prayed for further investigation u/s 173(8) of Cr.P.C. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Nagercoil, by means of an order dated 27.03.2012, has dismissed the Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012, by passing a cryptic order, which is a non-speaking one.
The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defacto Complainant urges before this Court that the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil in Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012 has passed an order on 27.03.2012, dismissing the said Miscellaneous Petition without dealing with the merits of the matter. Per contra, it is the plea of the Petitioner/Defacto Complainant that the trial Court has passed a non-speaking order.
At this juncture, it is not out of place to make a pertinent mention that the trial Court, while dismissing the Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012 on 27.03.2012 has observed as follows:
Cr. M.P. is dismissed with liberty to file private complaint by the petitioner and F.I.R. is accordingly closed.
On going through the order of dismissal in Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012 in Crime No. 1777 of 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil dated 27.03.2012, this Court is of the considered view that the said order is bereft of material particulars. In short, the quantitative and qualitative details for a speaking/reasoned order are very much lacking in the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012.
This Court, at this stage, aptly points out that a cryptic/non-speaking order may appears to be just one from the point of view of the particular Court/Judicial Magistrate, but insofar as it pertains to an aggrieved person, the said unreasoned or non-speaking order is certainly unjust and invalid one in the eye of law. To put it succinctly, a reasoned order/speaking order will have the appearance of justice, in the considered opinion of this Court. Even when a Court of law passes an Exparte Order, even then the said order is to conform to the well established principles of Law. The said order must also satisfy the requirements of a speaking order/reasoned order. Only if a reasoned order/speaking order is passed by a competent Court of law, then the same will provide an opportunity to the Appellate forum/Revisional forum to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the trial Court has dealt with the subject matter in issue in a dispassionate and unbiased manner.
Be that as it may, on the overall assessment of the facts and attendant circumstances of the present case on hand, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the impugned order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Nagercoil dated 27.03.2012, in Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012 in Crime No. 1777 of 2011 is a non-speaking/unreasoned order and the same does not stand a moment''s scrutiny in the eye of law. In short, the said order suffers from material irregularity and also with patent illegality in the eye of law. Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Revision Petition succeeds. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil dated 27.03.2012, in Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012 is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Revision. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil is directed to restore Crl.M.P. No. 335 of 2012 to his file and after providing due opportunities to the parties concerned is to pass orders on merits, in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this revision.