G. SHEIK MOHAIDEEN Vs. S. DEIVENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A private complaint preferred on the file of the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act, 1988, Madurai by the petitioner herein against the respondent herein for prosecuting and punishing the respondent Deivendran for an alleged offence under section 211 of IPC was taken on file by the said court as C.C.No.46/2010 and the learned special judge under the TNPID Act dismissed the said complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. by an order dated 06.05.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant Sheik Mohaideen, has approached this court questioning the correctness and legality of the said order by filing the present criminal revision case.

(2.) THE criminal revision case came up for admission on 30.09.2011. This court entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of the revision in the light of a provision found in section 11 of the TNPID Act, 1997 providing the remedy of appeal against any order passed by the said court. This court also entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of a private complaint for an offence under section 211 IPC. Notice before admission was issued to the respondent and the respondent entered appearance through counsel. When the matter stood listed for hearing, there was no representation for the respondent. Since this court was of the view that important questions of law are involved in this case, this court availed the services of Mr.Ananthapadmanabhan, advocate as amicus curiae. Accordingly, the arguments advanced by Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.Anantha Padmanabhan, learned advocate acting as amicus curiae were heard. The documents were also perused.

(3.) WHILE the matter is under investigation by the police and before any case was instituted on the court either on a police report or on a private complaint, the revision petitioner chose to prefer a private complaint on the file of the TNPID Court, Madurai alleging that a false complaint had been lodged against him and the criminal law has been set in motion based on the false complaint. The revision petitioner filed the said private complaint for prosecuting and punishing the respondent herein for the alleged offence under section 211 IPC. The learned Special Judge under the TNPID Act, who ought to have taken the same as a criminal miscellaneous petition, before taking a decision under section 204 Cr.P.C. regarding the issuance of process and taking a decision as to whether the offence alleged has to be tried as a warrant case or summons case, chose to number the private complaint as a calendar case and thereafter passed an elaborate order dismissing the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. The same is under the challenge in the present criminal revision case.