S RAMACHANDRAN Vs. M CHITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. He has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the sworn statement was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. Afterwards, the Magistrate's Court on 05.05.2009 returned the complaint pointing out certain defects to be rectified and be re-presented. There is no time limit fixed for representation. Presently, the revision has been filed challenging the procedure adopted by the Judicial Magistrate in returning the complaint.

(2.) Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the private complaint is presented before the Court, the Judicial Magistrate has no power to return the same even if contains any defects, he has to proceed in accordance with law. In support of his contention, he placed much reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2000(1) CTC 225, A. Vinayagam and 3 others vs. Dr.Subash Chandran and another, wherein it has been held as under :-

(3.) The said Division Bench decision has been followed by this Court in the subsequent decisions which are enlisted below: i) (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 1334, Casim Fareed Jaffardeen v. Mohd. Ansari. (ii) (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 753, R.Manoharan v. P.Naaz. (iii) Order of this Court dated 26.10.2009, S.Shajahan v. M.Shajahan and 3 others in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.944 of 2008 of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.