N A PANEERSELVAM Vs. BABY AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a written information lodged by the petitioner on 11.3.1999, the Sub Inspector of Police, R- 2, Kodambakkam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.352 of 1999 for the alleged offences under Section 427, 448 and 379 of IPC against accused 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2. When the case was taken for investigation by the then Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioner had his own grievance that the then Sub Inspector had taken sides with respondents 1 and 2. While so, on completing the investigation viz., the third respondent filed a final report before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai for an offence under Section 448 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same in C.C.No.7711 of 1999.

(2.) Subsequently, on coming to know about the same, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the very same learned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C in respect of the very same occurrence against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Though the petitioner now claims that he had only filed a petition seeking further investigation, the records show that it was a private complaint filed by the petitioner. From the records it could be seen that the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai referred the said complaint to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes, Egmore, Chennai under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of case and investigation of the same. As per the directions, a fresh case in respect of the very same occurrence was registered in Cr.No.644 of 2000 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. The said case was registered under Section 120(b) r/w 448, 451, 380 and 506(i) I.P.C. On completing the investigation, charge sheet was laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai on 06.07.2001 before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. On considering the same, the said Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 120(b) r/w 448, 452, 380 and 506(ii) I.P.C. in C.C.No.3041 of 2001.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai proceeded further with the trial of the case in C.C.No.7711 of 1999. Since, despite issuance of summons, witnesses were not produced, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents 1 and 2 by Judgment dated 19.12.2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2004.