A.S. Rajarethinam vs Arjunan and Others

C.S. Karnan, J.—The revision petitioner herein/complainant has filed a case in C.C. No. 18601 of 2005 against the respondents herein on

the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 327, 382 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. stating that

all the accused in connivance with the police personnel had forcibly driven the complainant and his family members from their tenanted portion and

gave all trouble, torture, humiliation and stolen all the household belongings of the complainant worth to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The

complainant had listed 9 witnesses and annexed 21 documents supporting his said private complaint. Under these circumstances the complainant

had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 582 of 2006 in C.C. No. 18601 of 2005 to issue a search warrant to the Deputy Commissioner of

Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-8 to search the residence of the accused 1 to 7 at Old Door No. 66, Palayam Pillai Nagar,

Ayanavaram, Chennai-23 and to safe guard the belongings of the complainant kept in the premises and more fully described in the annexes to this

petition.

The above Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 10.04.2006 and assigned the reason that the alleged

offences had taken place during the year 2003. This petition has been filed belatedly, Civil cases are also pending between the complainant and the

accused persons. The learned Magistrate further viewed that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch is not under the

jurisdiction of this Court, hence the said dismissal order has been passed.

Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed by the complainant. The highly competent counsel for the revision

petitioner argued that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper manner and erred in

dismissing the application of the petitioner. The petitioner had taken steps to recover his household articles which were plundered by the accused

on 19.03.2003 and the petitioner on the very next day i.e. 20.03.2003 lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police and another complaint

was lodged with the Joint Commissioner of Police on 21.03.2003 and the same was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Secretariat. Further, a lawyer''s notice was also issued to the 1st accused on 22.08.2003, copy of the notice sent to the Inspector of Police,

Ayanavaram Police Station. The learned counsel further contended that the concerned police officers did not act upon the said complaints,

therefore the complainant has filed a direction petition in Criminal O.P. No. 9676 of 2004 to register a case against the accused. Thereafter, the

Inspector of Police, Ayanavaram, conducted an enquiry and closed the file, however this Court permits the petitioner to approach the concerned

forum by way of private complaint and accordingly the private complaint has been filed. The very competent counsel argued that there are no Civil

cases pending between the parties concerned, but the contempt petition is alone pending against the 2 accused herein and the Inspector of Police

and Head Constable, since the police personnel have not taken any effective steps to recover the articles belonging to the petitioner. Under these

circumstances, a search warrant is necessary to recover the stolen properties from the premises of the accused.

The highly competent counsel further contended that how the properties were stolen from the accused has been narrated in the main complaint.

In order to prove the theft case the stolen properties shall be recovered from the accused. Once the case is being taken on file under Sections 382

and 354, the search warrant is necessary for recovering the said stolen properties.

On the side of the respondents, counter statement has been filed stating that the petitioner had occupied a portion of the house to an extent of

330 sq. feet and he had vacated the tenancy premises in the middle of the year 2003. Now the vacated portion is occupied by another tenant. The

petitioner collected all his belongings at the time of vacating his tenancy premises and handed over the tenancy portion. Due to difference of opinion

that had arisen between the petitioner and the respondents, the false complaint levelled against the respondents. The Civil suit and the direction

petition have been dismissed.

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the

counter statement of the respondents and impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said impugned

order. This Court''s further view that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents since both are tenant and landlord, the same which

is evident in O.S. No. 4870 of 2002 on the file of VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. However, the petitioner has lodged several complaints

against the respondents herein before the concerned police officers, Police action has not been satisfied with the petitioner herein, therefore the

petitioner is constrained to file a private complaint in C.C. No. 18601 of 2005 which is pending on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

Hence, this Court directs the learned Magistrate to dispose the main case on merits without being influenced by this Court''s discussion on the top

most priority basis. In the result, the above revision is dismissed with the above direction. Consequently, the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 582 of

2006 in C.C. No. 18601 of 2005, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 18.04.2006, is confirmed. There is no order

as to costs.