(1.) THIS revision, filed under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1988 on 2.5.1988, dismissing the same, which was preferred, challenging the correctness and legality of the order passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in refusing to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner herein, against the respondent, filed under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, for the alleged offence punishable under Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) SHORT facts, which are necessary to appreciate and dispose this revision, as gathered from the impugned judgment and the case records are stated as follows: The revision petitioner had filed a suit O.S.No. 7671 of 1985 for some civil reliefs on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, which came up for trial on 2.12.1987 in which, applications were also heard. During the arguments, the respondent herein, who is the counsel for the defendant in the said civil proceedings is alleged to have abused the revision petitioner in the open court and in the presence of the learned IV Assistant Judge and hit him on the left side of his head over the left ear. According to the petitioner, the said action of the respondent had caused physical and mental agony, pain and dishonour and so much of anguish to the petitioner. Besides, his activities had also caused interruption, insult and annoyance to the learned Presiding Judge as well as the proceedings. Accordingly, the trial Judge was requested to take action. Besides, the police officials of the Esplanade Police Station though-approached they refused to register any case upon the complaint of the revision petitioner herein. He was admitted in the Government Hospital and consequently, underwent treatment as an inpatient since his blood pressure exceeded the limit. Then he got discharged against the medical advice but however, continued his treatment in a private nursing home. Even on 24.11.1987, prior to the actual occurrence, there was abuses prostrated against the revision petitioner herein. Therefore, according to the petitioner, learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, should have suo motu taken cognizance of an offence and consequently, preferred a complaint in writing to the concerned criminal court. Since he has not done so, the revision petitioner filed an application before the trial court praying for taking action against the respondent herein as contemplated under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but however, the same was returned. Under the circumstances by virtue of Sec.341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner praying for setting aside the order of refusal passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.
(3.) MR.K. Mathews, the petitioner as party-in-person while canvassing the grounds of revision, drew my attention to Sec.341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which assumes every significance in this case, to be considered regarding the appeal, which reads as follows: "(1) Any person on whose application any court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under Sub-sec.(1) or Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such court, may appeal to the court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.195, and the superior court may, thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former court might have made under Sec.340, and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly (2) An order under this section, and subject to any such order, an order under Sec.340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision". While relying on the above section of law, the petitioner drew my attention also to Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows: