P. AYYAPPAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbadur in Crl.M.P. No. 572 of 2015. By the said order dated 30.03.2015, the private complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to take cognisance of the offence complained of.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner/defacto complainant, he is the owner of the property - a vacant land measuring 898 square feet comprised in Survey No.161 in Kundrathur Main Road, Gerugambakkam, Chennai - 600 122, which was purchased by his father late. Parthasarathy by means of a registered sale deed during the year 1996. From the date of such purchase, the father of the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid vacant land and after the demise of his father, the petitioner continued to peacefully possess and enjoy the said land. While so, on 09.08.2013 one Kalaimani @ Venugopal along with his henchmen have dismantled the hut put up by the petitioner in the aforesaid land and when it was questioned, they threatened the petitioner with dire consequences by stating that if the petitioner continued to reside there, he will be done to death. In this connection, the petitioner has given a complaint dated 09.08.2013 to the second respondent for which a receipt in CSR No. 1079 of 2013 was issued to him. However, the respondents did not take any action on the basis of such complaint dated 09.08.2013. Thereafter, on 16.03.2015, one Naresh, Son of Kanagasabai along with his henchmen alleged to have trespassed in to the land owned by the petitioner and attempted to put up or erect a temporary shed. For such purpose, the said Naresh and his henchmen have allegedly unloaded construction materials in the land, erected a temporary shed where watermelon have been stored. When it was questioned by the petitioner, they have stated that they will run a shop only in that place and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. In this context, the petitioner has given a complaint dated 16.03.2015 to the second respondent for which a receipt in CSR No.1397/2015 was given. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any action on the basis of his complaint, therefore, he has given a complaint dated 17.03.2015 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who in turn forwarded the complaint to the respondents and directed them to cause necessary investigation thereof. According to the petitioner, despite such direction given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the respondents have failed and neglected to take any action on the complaint given by him or registered a first information report on the basis of his complaint. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the private complaint before the trial Court on 19.03.2015 against the respondents herein. Such private complaint was filed purportedly under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. with a specific prayer to direct the respondents to register a first information report on the basis of the complaint dated 16.03.2015. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not take any action on the basis of his complaint dated 16.03.2015 despite issuing a CSR receipt on 16.03.2015 which necessiated him to file the private complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial court erred in dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner without proper appreciation of the facts of the case. According to the counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner was examined on oath, it amounts to taking cognisance of the complaint and thereafter, the trial court is bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is only limited for the purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case is made out or not and the lower Court ought not to have conducted a detailed enquiry thereby it caused injustice to the petitioner. The trial Court failed to place reliance on the material evidence produced by the petitioner while dismissing the private complaint. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision Cse.