V. SINGARAVELAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE de-facto complainant in Crime No.887 of 2008, which was registered on the file of the Kottai Police Station, Tiruchirappalli is the present revision petitioner. He had preferred a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli on 11.08.2008 alleging that his paternal aunt Mariammal was murdered by the respondents 2 to 5 herein on 21.12.2002. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli, perhaps considering the position that investigation could not be ordered if Private Complaint Procedure would be adopted, rightly chose to refer the said complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the police for investigation. Accordingly, a case was registered on the file of Kottai Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District, in Crime No.887 of 2008 on 29.09.2008 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 and 203 IPC. The Inspector of Police of the said Police Station, after completing the investigation, came to the conclusion that there was no material to show the death of Mariammal to be homicidal. The Investigating Officer had also found that the death was natural and the same was sought to be projected as a homicidal death. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, Kottai Police Station submitted a final report for dropping the case as 'mistake of fact'.

(2.) THE revision petitioner, being the de-facto complainant, was given notice of such negative final report and on receipt of such notice, he chose to file once again a private complaint in the form of a protest petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli took it on file as Crl.M.P.No.4646 of 2009 following the Private Complaint Procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and postponed the issue of process till the inquiry would be conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner herein(de-facto complainant) and the witnesses produced by the de-facto complainant were examined on oath and their sworn statements were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli.

(3.) THE learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli, considered the above said materials to take a decision under Section 203 Cr.P.C as to whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents 2 to 5 herein, for any offence. Upon such consideration, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli formed an opinion that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding and consequently, dismissed the complaint under Section 303 Cr.P.C., by the impugned order stating the reasons for doing so. Aggrieved by and challenging the said order of dismissal dated 30.09.2010, made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,Tiruchirappalli in Crl.M.P.No.4646 of 2009, the petitioner in the revision case(de-facto complainant) has come forward with the present revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C.