ARUMUGHA GOUNDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal miscellaneous, petition arises out of the following circumstances. One Deivasigamani filed a complaint against eleven accused persons in the court of the sub-divisional magistrate Villupuram, alleging that they committed offences punishable under. Sections 506 (2), 392, 647 (evidently a mistake for 447) Indian Penal Code. This list included offences which are cognisable by the police, and thereupon the learned sub-divisional magistrate made an endorsement The offences complained, of are cognisable. Forwarded to the inspector of police, Tindivanara Town, for investigation and report Under Section 156 (3) Cripc The police investigated the case and filed a charge-sheet in the court of the sub-magistrate, Tindivanam, for offences Under Section 447 IPC for criminal trespass and 379 IPC for theft.

(2.) THE accused raised a preliminary objection before the sub-magistrate, Tindivanam, alleging that the sub-divisional magistrate acted illegally in forwarding the complaint to the police Under Section 156 (3) Cripc that if he wanted a preliminary inquiry by the police he should have acted Under Section 202 Cripc that consequently the further action by the police was illegal, and that therefore the accused should be discharged Under Section 251-A (2) Cripc The Sub- magistrate held that the procedure was legal and dismissed the preliminary objection. The Accused filed a revision petition Under Section 435 and 436 Cripc before the District Magistrate, South Arcot at Cuddalore, who declined to interfere with the above order. Hence this criminal miscellaneous petition is filed in this Court.

(3.) MR. C. K. Venkatanarasimhan, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners before me, and who were accused in the lower court, urged that in the circumstances of the complaint made before the sub-divisional Magistrate the sub-divisional Magistrate acted illegally in forwarding the complaint for investigation to the inspector of police Under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal. Procedure Code. In the alternative he contended, that in any event it was not a proper course to adopt in the circumstances of the case.