High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 11 MAD CK 0221

S. Regina Beevi vs The Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Vadasery, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 November 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Venugopal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal R.C. (MD) .No. 558 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 727 words

Honourable Mr. Justice M. Venugopal

1.

The revision petitioner/Petitioner/De-facto complainant has filed the instant Crl.R.C.(MD).No. 558 of 2012 as against the order dated 27.03.2012 in Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. Heard both sides.

2.

The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil while dealing with the Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012 on 27.03.2012 has passed an order to the effect that "Crl. M.P. No. 337 of 2012 is dismissed with liberty to file private complaint by the petitioner and resultantly closed the First Information Report". To avoid and avoidable detail this Court has not issued notice to the respondent/Complainant and disposes of the matter at the admission stage itself to secure the ends of justice.

3.

Being dissatisfied with the said order dated 27.03.2012 in Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil, the Revision petitioner as an aggrieved person has focused the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court.

4.

Miss. P. Kalai Nila, the Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/De-facto complainant submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in passing one line order of dismissal in Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012 without dwelling into the merits of the case and as such the said order per se is not maintainable in law.

5.

Advancing arguments, the Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/De-facto complainant contends that though the respondent/Complainant(Police) has stated that the complaint of the petitioner has been closed as mistake of fact on 08.11.2011 he has neither served the copy of the petitioner nor filed the final report before the Court.

6.

Another argument projected by the Learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Learned Judicial Magistrate in law has the power to treat Crl. M.P. No. 337 of 2012 as private complaint and examined the petitioner and other witnesses in the teeth of relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Unfortunately, by passing an order bereft of details, the trial Court has dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

7.

A perusal of the contents of Crl. M.P. No. 337 of 2012 filed by the Revision petitioner before the trial Court unhearingly point out that the petitioner has prayed for accepting the protest petition and also prayed for further investigation as per Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

8.

Though the Revision petitioner has filed the Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil, the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil has admittedly dismissed the said Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint and consequently closed the F.I.R. Undoubtedly, the said cryptic order bereft of quantitative and qualitative details and is a non-speaking/unreasoned one, in the considered opinion of this Court. Further, there is no out line of process of reasoning adduced by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil while dismissing the Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012 on 27.12.2012. It cannot be gainsaid that a non-speaking/unreasoned order may be just and valid one from the point of view passed by the concerned competent Court. But to an aggrieved person, the said order is fairly an unjust one. Per contra, a speaking or reasoned order will have the appearance of justice. While passing an reasoned order, in a given case, it is the primordial duty of the Court of law to assign necessary, just, valid and adequate reasons, so as to enable the appellate/revisional forum to weigh the pros and cons of the impugned order passed. Unfortunately, this Court comes to a conclusion that the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil in Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012 dated 27.03.2012 is admittedly a non-speaking/unreasoned order, which does not a moments scrutiny in the eye of law. Resultantly, 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 in Crl. M.P. No. 337 of 2012 dated 27.03.2012 is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil is directed to restore the Crl.M.P. No. 337 of 2012 to his file and to dispose of the same in the manner known to law and in accordance with law by passing an speaking order with necessary quality and quantity details.