AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.T. Selvam, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the docket order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Uludurpettai in Crl.M.P. No. 4128/2009 dated 20.2.2010 and consequently direct the Judicial Magistrate No. 1,
Ulundurpettai to take the Petitioner''s complaint on file and conduct enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Sections 201 - 203 of Code of
Criminal Procedure
The Petitioners informs of conducting a telephone booth besides a highway near the Government School at Ulundurpettai, under due permission
received from the National Highways Authorities. The Petitioner informs that when such order permitting him to run the telephone booth was
produced before the District Revenue Officer, such Officer refused to peruse the same and informed of an order of Court whereunder, he had
been directed to remove the telephone booth. When asked for the order of the Court, the District Revenue Officer threatened the Petitioner
informing that he was a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and had powers to punish persons. The Petitioner further informs that at the instigation of such
official, other accused attempted to attack him. On making an application before the District Court at Villupuram, the Petitioner learnt that there
was no order of Court authorizing the action of the accused persons. The lower Court had rejected the complaint of the Petitioner on the reasoning
that the accused had acted in official capacity and in public interest with intent of removing an encroachment. The lower Court has informed that
the action of the accused having been done in the course of their duties, would not amount to commission of offences. As held in the decision of
this Court in M. Jeevanantham v. Balaji and Ors. (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 960, the question of whether the accused persons conducted themselves in
the course of their duties so as to attract application of Section 197 Cr.P.C., could be gathered only after recording the statement of the
complainant and others, if any.
On a bare perusal, the complaint does reflect the commission of cognizable offences. The lower Court ought not to have rejected the same
summarily. Of course the contention that a Magistrate can never reject a complaint presented before him, cannot be accepted. The Hon''ble
Supreme Court in Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda and Ors. AIR 1970 SC 1153 in para 11 has held as
follows:
The word ''complaint'' has a wide meaning since it includes even an oral allegation. It may, therefore, be assumed that no form is prescribed
which the complaint must take. It may only be said that there must be an allegation which prima facie discloses the commission of an offence with
the necessary facts for the Magistrate to take action. Section 190(1)(a) makes it necessary that the alleged facts must disclose the commission of
an offence.
Thus, it would follow that where the facts alleged do not disclose the commission of offence, the Magistrate may reject the complaint.
However, in the instant case and for the reasons herein aforesaid, the order of the lower Court rejecting the complaint is set aside. Accordingly,
the docket order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Uludurpettai in Crl.M.P. No. 4128/2009 dated 20.2.2010 is hereby set aside. The
Petitioner is at liberty to forward the complaint afresh to the Judicial Magistrate No. I. Ulundurpettai, who shall deal with the same in accordance
with law.
By way of abundant caution, it is to be informed that if on examination of the complainant and the witnesses, if any, the Magistrate finds that no
offence stands committed it would be open to him to reject the complaint. If on the other hand, it is found that the offence was one committed in
the course of performance of official duties, he may await requisite sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C., before proceeding further.