LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-309

THIRUMAL Vs. C M RATHNAKUMAR

Decided On November 07, 2012
Thirumal Appellant
V/S
Pandurengan Sub-Inspector Of Police B-1, District Crime Branch Police Station Dharmapuri Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision is filed by the petitioner questioning the correctness of the order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Court below, by which the private complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents, who against the dismissal of the private complaint made against the police officer in respect of registering an FIR. According to the petitioner, he had three brothers namely Arun Kumar, Vettriselvam and Thirumalaiselvam of whom Vettriselvan was employed as Project Manager in G.R.M. Estate India Limited, Secunderabad and he was paid a sum of Rs. 7,84,200/- as annual salary. Out of the salary received from such employment, the petitioner's brother purchased gold coins and other golden jewellery and the same were stolen along with cash of Rs. 35,000/- by unidentified persons on the early morning at 3.00 a.m. on 29.7.2010. Based on this, the petitioner's father had given a complaint in Kariamangalam Police Station and based on the same, the case in Crime No. 680 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Section 395 IPC. During the course of investigation, the respondents, who were working in Kariamangalam Police Station during the relevant period, have taken the petitioner to his house on 4.30 p.m. in the guise of investigation and recovered some documents, gold coins, silver articles and cash to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and also detained the petitioner illegally till late night on 29.7.2010 in the guise of enquiry. According to the petitioner, the respondents also demanded the petitioner to part with half of the recovered amount to the first respondent so that they will not proceed further against him. Since the petitioner refused to accede to the demand of the respondents, the petitioner was falsely implicated in a case in Crime No. 1374 of 2010 under Section 379 and 413 of IPC and he was also remanded to judicial custody. After coming out on bail, the petitioner has complained to the higher police officials, but no action was taken in view of the fact that the respondents have given a false report against the petitioner, since the petitioner has filed petition for return of his property before the Magistrate concerned. In fact, the petitioner's brother was also made to file a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1495 of 2010 before this Court and it was disposed of on 10.8.2010. Therefore, the petitioner complain that the action of the respondents is punishable under Section 143, 195, 199, 200, 211, 341, 342, 347, 380, 388 and 506 (ii) IPC read with Section 120(b) of IPC.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that it is for the petitioner to prove that the articles recovered in connection with the case in Crime No. 1374 of 2010 belonged to him and that it is a false case during the course of trial in that case, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dharmapuri. If the private complaint is entertained, it will affect the case in Crime No. 1374 of 2010 and accordingly, the Court below dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the present Revision Case has been filed. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court finds that the materials available on record would show that the trial in the case registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 1374 of 2010 is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dharmapuri and only after trial, it can be concluded that the properties recovered in connection with the case No. 1374 of 2010 is the property of the petitioner or not. In fact, the petitioner can also adduce oral and documentary evidence during the course of trial to prove that the properties recovered in connection with the case registered against him namely Crime No. 1374 of 2010. The petitioner also stated to have filed Criminal Original Petition before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the case in Crime No. 1374 of 2010 and the same is pending. Under those circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, if the private complaint filed by the petitioner is taken cognisance of or entertained, it will affect the trial in the case pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dharmapuri in connection with Crime No. 1374 of 2010. Therefore it is pre-mature on the part of the petitioner to have filed the private complaint seeking to take action against the respondents for registering a false case against him. As long as case filed against the petitioner is pending trial, in connection with the very same cause of action, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file the private complaint. In any event, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.