STATE Vs. S. SUGUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, directing a report from the Commissioner of Police relating to the complaint dtd. 17/5/2019 is just and reasonable for filing a status or final report on the complaint within two months.

(2.) b. According to the Respondent, the Petitioners have created history sheet with motive and it is stated by the Petitioners that various cases are pending against the Respondent which are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_172_LAWS(MAD)9_2022_1.html</FRM>

(3.) According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petition has been filed just like a 482 Cr.P.C.Petition before the Sessions Court for direction to register an FIR which is not permissible under law. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that though the Special Court has original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, the enquiry or investigation cannot be conducted by the Special Court. Merely on the basis of the petition, Sessions Court cannot assume the role of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction as available under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.to give such a direction. If any complaint is made, making out a cognizable offence before the concerned police officer, when police refuse to receive or FIR is not registered, remedy of the Petitioner lies under Sec. 154 of Cr.P.C. Even if the same has not been materialised he has to chose his remedy by way of Private Complaint. Only after enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate can take cognizance of materials, after finding that there is some offence made out which is exclusively triable by special court, concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court shall commit the case to the Special Court. Therefore, in the absence of such powers to the sessions Court to conduct enquiry on the bald allegations of the petitioner such direction cannot be maintained in the eye of law.