K SUNITHA Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner challenges the order of the learned Special Judge, Puducherry, refusing to take cognizance on the complaint of the petitioner dated 19.09.2011 alleging offences under Section 294-B, 323, 506(1) 509 and 354 IPC as also Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In rejecting the complaint, the Court below has taken into consideration all the documents filed along with the complaint. From the reading of the contents, the Court below drew a conclusion that the allegations of demand for bride was not found in the first communication addressed by the petitioner/ complainant to the Superintendent of Police and the same came to be made after much delay. The stand of the Superintendent of Police, Mahe, informing that the allegations of the accused abusing the complainant was false and that of the Station House Officer, Mahe Police Station, were taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion that the complaint prime facie appeared to be baseless, motivated and an after thought. The appreciation and consideration of the material in the manner done is unwarranted when on the question of taking cognizance.

(2.) In decision reported in (Mariappan v. Pannerselvam and either others,1990 LW(Cri) 141, it has been held as follows:

(3.) This court finds that in the instant case, the court below having received the complaint on 19.09.2011 has straight away found no merits therein under order dated 20.09.2011. The complainant has not been examined nor have the statements of the witnesses been recorded. A reading of the order reflects the position that the Court below has merely acted upon the communications addressed by Police officials. The impugned order cannot be sustained. It is incumbent upon the court below to examine the complaint as also the witnesses produced and take a comprehensive view of the matter i. e. , taken into consideration not only the complaint but also the statement of the witnesses and thereafter arrive at a decision on whether a prime facie case is made out. Accordingly, the revision shall stand allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted back to the learned Special Judge, Puducherry, to act afresh in keeping with the observations herein above made. Registry is directed to return original complaint to the learned counsel for the petitioner.