M. Saraswathi vs R. Singaram

R. Mala, J.—This revision has been filed challenging the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 149 of 2014 in C.C.No. 167 of 2014, dated 25.06.2014, by the learned II Additional District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, in not taking the cognizance of the offence against respondents 8 to 11 herein/accused Nos. 8 to 11.

Heard the submissions made on either side.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein, as a complainant, filed a private complaint under Section 190 r/w 200 Cr.P.C., against 11 persons. After examining the witnesses, viz., complainant (Saraswathi), her husband (Mahalingam), daughter (Mythili) and son (Karthikeyan), the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence in respect of respondents 1 to 7/A-1 to A-7, and dismissed the private complaint against respondents 8 to 11/A-8 to A-11/, against which, the present revision has been filed.

The case of the petitioner is that on 15.10.2013 at 07.00 p.m., respondents 1 to 7 herein assaulted one Karthikeyan, who is the son of the petitioner, for teasing the daughter of the first respondent, by name Padma Priya. Immediately, she went to the police station to lodge a complaint. The allegation of the petitioner is that the eighth respondent, in spite of registering a case, threatened her to go to the hospital. It is further alleged that on 16.10.2013, the eighth respondent recorded her statement and obtained signature in three white papers. In paragraph No. 3 of the complaint, it was stated that on the basis of the complaint given by Singaram, the first respondent herein, a case has been registered against the petitioner, her husband and also her son. The petitioner''s husband and son have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. At the instigation of the first respondent, the son of the petitioner viz., Karthikeyan has been assaulted by the ninth respondent.

It is further stated that the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail and when she went to the police station to abide the condition imposed, the eleventh respondent threatened her with a direction to withdraw the case. The tenth and eleventh respondents have demanded money. That factum was not considered by the Trial Court, while passing the dismissal order. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for a direction to take cognizance of the offence against respondents 8 to 11 also.

Mr.K.M.Karunakaran, learned counsel representing for respondents 1 to 7 would submit that respondents 1 to 7 are only the formal parties and they have not given any complaint against the petitioner.

Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel for respondents 8 to 11 would take the point stating that as per the decision in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others, , in the revision petition filed by the complainant against dismissal of complaint, opportunity of hearing must be given to the suspect. Here also, opportunity was given. The argument of the learned counsel for respondents 8 to 11 was heard in length.

The first limb of the argument is that this is a case and counter case. On the incident took place on 15.10.2013, one Gurunathan lodged a complaint on 17.10.2013 and a case has been registered in Crime No. 222 of 2013 against the petitioner, her husband and her son. On the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein, a case in Crime No. 223 of 2013 has been registered. Hence, the allegation made by the petitioner against the eighth respondent has been falsified.

He would further submit that in respect of the ninth respondent, it is the case that he assaulted Karthikeyan, son of the petitioner. However, to prove the same, the petitioner has not filed any scrap of paper before the Court, since her son and husband were arrested in respect of the case in Crime No. 222 of 2013 and remanded to judicial custody. It is not the case that he made a complaint against the ninth respondent for the said assault and the remand report has not been filed.

He would further submit that insofar as the tenth respondent is concerned, except his oral averment, nothing is there. Therefore, it is unable to accept the said allegation. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that as if it is a demand of bribe. In such circumstances, she ought to have approached the appropriate forum and not before the Magistrate concerned.

He would further submit that the allegation levelled against the eleventh respondent is that he threatened the petitioner to withdraw the case, when she went to abide the condition imposed by this Court, while granting anticipatory bail. However, except the said statement, no independent witness has been examined to prove the same. It is the duty of the petitioner to prove the ingredients of the offence has been prima facie made out.

Considering the overall circumstances and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the both sides, I am of the view that there is no material evidence before the Court to made out the prima facie case against the respondents 8 to 11. In such circumstances, even though the Trial Court has not passed a speaking order while dismissing the private complaint against respondents 8 to 11, I am of the view that the order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, it is hereby confirmed and the revision is dismissed accordingly.