N. RENGASAMY Vs. LATHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the main revision itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 57 of 2011 registered by the 12th respondent namely, the Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station.

(3.) THE revision petitioner immediately proceeded to Theni Police Station and lodged a complaint and it was refused to receive and sometime thereafter, he sent a representation to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Police and on that representation, no proper action was taken and on account of the acts of the respondents 1 to 11, his eye sight became poor. The revision petitioner/de facto complainant would further state that he has also submitted a representation on 26.08.2010 to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, and it was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Theni, and though the said official directed the Jurisdictional Police Station to enquire into, no proper action was taken and it was closed. Again, the revision petitioner submitted a representation on 16.12.2010 to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, with a copy marked to the Superintendent of Police and Jurisdictional Police Station and once again it was refused to be taken cognizance by the Jurisdictional Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner filed a private complaint on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Theni, and it was forwarded to the Jurisdictional Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, based on which, a case in Crime No. 57/2011 was registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 365, 324 and 506(ii) IPC on 31.11.2011.