MANJA BEEVI Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been filed questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2010. However, since it had been inappropriately described in Tamil as "Tamil", the petitioner has chosen to prefer the present revision, as if the impugned order was passed in M.C.No.35 of 2010. After the revision was taken on file and listed for admission, the petitioner left the matter without any representation when the matter stood listed on 31.01.2012 for admission. Hence, this court intending to afford one more opportunity adjourned the matter by 10 days and thus, the matter stands listed today for admission under the caption "Adjourned admission'.

(2.) TODAY also it seems that the petitioner is not ready to get along with the revision. Mr.B.Chakkravarthi, Advocate one of the counsel on record who is present simply prayed for an adjournment, which this court was not inclined to grant. Even after the court's decision not to grant an adjournment was made known, the learned Advocate referred above refused to make any submission for the admission of the criminal revision case. Hence, this court deems it appropriate to peruse the revision petition and the connected papers produced along with the grounds of revision and pass an order.

(3.) THE Inspector of Police of the said police station completed the investigation and on such completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police came to the conclusion that there was no truth in the complaint and hence, chose to submit a negative final report. On receipt of notice informing the filing of the negative final report, the petitioner came forward with a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C in the form of a protest petition. The same came to be taken on file by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi as a private complaint. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate postponed the issue of process and proposed to proceed with the examination of the petitioner herein/complainant and the witnesses to be produced by the petitioner herein/complainant. Though such a protest petition was filed in the month of August 2010 itself, till 18.08.2011 the petitioner did not come forward to give her sworn statement and produce witnesses to speak for her. Under the said circumstance alone, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate chose to dismiss the complaint with the result the respondent stood discharged, presumably under section 249 Cr.P.C due to the absence of the complainant. Having paving the way for such a un-ceremonial dismissal of the complaint and having chosen to prefer a revision against the same, the petitioner is expected be prompt at-least before this court in proceeding with the revision.