S. SUGANTHY Vs. PANJANIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the Order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.937 of 2020 dtd. 21/9/2021, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.

(2.) The fact of the case is that the the petitioner is the complainant and the respondents are accused persons and they are husband and wife. The petitioner and the respondents are residing in a house owned by one Mr.Arokiadas and he is residing in France. The complainant is residing in the first floor and the respondents are residing in the ground floor. On 24/9/2019, at bout 3 p.m., the respondents poured pesticide powder in the entire building including the pathway. Due to the irritating smell of poisonous nature, the petitioner's family suffered breathing problem. Hence, they opened all the windows and doors common to all of them. Due to this, the respondents entered into the petitioner's house and abused her in filthy language and the second respondent with an intention to kill the petitioner, assaulted the petitioner with a wooden stick and attempted to kill her. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the police through phone no.100. The police after receiving the complaint from the complainant, has not taken any action, since the first respondent is a Government official. The respondents by using Government power, prevented the police from taking any action. The petitioner sent complaint to various higher officials. But no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry under Sec. 156 [3] Cr.P.C. for forwarding the complaint to the respondent to register the First Information Report and to investigate and to file the final report. The learned Magistrate, after receiving the complaint under Sec. 156[3] of Cr.P.C., called for a report from the police. The police filed a report stating that there is a dispute between the landlord and the petitioner and a case is also pending between the parties. It is further stated that the incident is not proved and only a wordy quarrel had happened. Hence, the learned Magistrate stating that the petitioner is not bonafide on her part and no cognizable offence is disclosed in the complaint, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the allegations stated in the complaint and also failed to appreciate the accident register filed by the petitioner to show the petitioner's injury and treatment particulars. He would further contend that since a cognizable offence is made out, a case has to be registered and it has to be investigated further. The learned counsel also showed the CCTV footage recorded before this Court and also filed a copy of the photo of footage.