K JACKULINE SATHYA PRIYA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner/de facto complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 21.8.2012 in Crl. M.P. No. 5454 of 2012 in Cr. No. 48 of 2011 in C.C. No. 94 of 2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV. Tiruchirappalli, in dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner, praying for further investigation of the case in a proper manner. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tiruchirappalli, while passing orders in Crl. M.P. No. 5454 of 2012 dated 21.8.2012, has many other things observed that the petitioner/de facto complainant has not questioned her statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. and also a reading of the complaint does not make any allegation against all others and entire allegation is against her husband and mother-in-law and resultantly, dismissed the petition.

(2.) Assailing the dismissal order of the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 5454 of 2012 in C.C. No. 94 of 2012 dated 21.8.2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tiruchirappalli, the learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant urges before this Court that the Learned Judicial Magistrate has failed to appreciate as per the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Sing v. Commissioner of Police, 1985 CrLJ 1179, wherein, it is observed that in a case, where the Learned Judicial Magistrate, to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section 2 of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Learned Judicial Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to he heard at the time of consideration of the report.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court has not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/de facto complainant at the time of consideration of the report before taking the case on file as C.C. No. 94 of 2012 on the basis of the final report submitted by the First Respondent/Police.