M ARJUNAN Vs. MAHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Appeal arises out of the dismissal of the complaint preferred by the appellant/complainant which was taken on file in C.C.No.209 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Perundurai.

(2.) THE appellant/complainant has preferred a private complaint stating that there was a property dispute between the first accused/first respondent and the appellant/complainant for past 10 years and a case was also registered in Chennimalai police station in Crime No.10/2002, which is pending. THE second accused/second respondent is Panchayat Board President. THE appellant herein was canvassing for a party against A2. So there was an enmity between the appellant and A1 and A2/respondents herein. On 14.11.2001, at 7.30 p.m., when appellant and his sister Kulandaiammal were proceeding in their Moped, at the time, the first accused drove his Bajaj M80 bearing Registration No.TN33Q9974 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Moped. Due to the said impact, the appellant had sustained injury on his right leg, right arm and right shoulder. Likewise, his sister Kulandaiammal also sustained injury on her left hand and left thigh. At the time, the second accused, who was proceeding behind the first accused in a bullet motor cycle, stated that the first accused had wantonly dashed against the appellant. Further, A1 threatened appellant that if he would give police complaint, A1 would be killed him. Hence, the appellant returned to his house and gave complaint to Chennimalai police station on 15.11.2001. But the police sources have not taken the complaint on file and gave a letter to appellant for taking medical treatment in Erode Government Hospital. He gone to that hospital and took treatment. Since the police had not taken any steps, appellant was constrained to file a private complaint against the accused.

(3.) MR.A.K.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the above said incident, the appellant and his sister sustained injury, which was proved by examining the Doctor, who gave treatment and marking of Exs.P2 and P3/wound certificates. That factum has not been considered by the trial Court. The trial Court has erroneously held that the documents related to the vehicle, which involved in the accident was not produced before the Court. He further submitted that non compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. is not fatal to their case. Hence, he prayed for allowing of this appeal.