Sathis Raja @ Sathish, & Ors. vs Susheela

This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.121 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, Madurai District and quash the same.

It is averred in the petition that the defacto complainant lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 354, 324, 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai, took cognizance of the above said offences and issued summons to the petitioners. The defacto complainant immediately after the alleged occurrence that occurred on 16.01.2009, lodged a complaint before the police on 17.01.2009 and after due investigation, the case was referred as ''Mistake of Fact'' in August 2009. But, after a year, the defacto complainant has come forward with the present private complaint. Thus, the petitioners are allowed to face the trial twice for the same set of facts and the complaint has been filed after enormous delay of about one year and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioners are to be quashed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case registered on the complaint filed by the defacto complainant was already referred as ''Mistake of Fact'' after investigation and the present private complaint filed after a year from the date of closure of the said case is nothing but to take vengeance as against the petitioners and therefore, the proceedings are to be quashed.

The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, contends that the case registered on the complaint given by the defacto complainant was referred as ''Mistake of Fact'' without giving any notice to the defacto complainant and therefore, immediately after knowing about the fate of the case, the defacto complainant preferred the private complaint and the Judicial Magistrate, after satisfying himself from the statements recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offence and therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.121 of 2010 does not require any interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

There is no dispute that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the police with respect to the occurrence dated 16.01.2009 and on 17.01.2009, a case was registered and after due investigation, the case was referred as ''Mistake of Fact''. With respect to the same occurrence, the present private complaint has been preferred by the defacto complainant.

The learned counsel for the petitioners urges only two points. One is that the petitioners cannot be allowed to face trial twice for the same set of facts and another is that the complaint has been lodged after long delay. As far as the first contention is concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioners are put to face the ordeal twice for the same set of facts. As per the code, the defacto complainant is entitled to file private complaint, if the case lodged with the police is referred or closed. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be said that they are facing the trial twice. The complaint given by the police was closed, after investigation and the petitioners were not put on trial. In the present case based on the private complaint, the petitioners are bound to face the trial as the offences are prima facie made out from the statements recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

With respect to the second contention as to the delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, the contention of the respondent that immediately after knowing that the case registered on the complaint given by him was referred as ''Mistake of Fact'', he filed the present private complaint as no notice was given, while referring the case, is also acceptable. Therefore, the above two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. This Court does not find any reason to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

For the above said reasons, this criminal original petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.