RAVANAIYA REDDY Vs. BALAIYA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JOLARPETTAI LOCAL POLICE STATION, JOLARPETTAI, NORTH ARCOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the complainant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Tirupattur, in Crl.M.P. No. 1272 of 1984 dated 21st September, 1984, dismissing the Petitioner's complaint.

(2.) IT is necessary to state a few facts of the case for the appreciation of the point in dispute. The Petitioner herein filed a complaint against the Respondent who is the Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Jolarpet Police Station, under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the Respondent, a public servant, disobeyed the law intending to cause injury to the Petitioner. In his complaint, the Petitioner has alleged that one Radha and 13 others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 13th September, 1982 at 7:30 A.M. and armed themselves with dangerous weapons, trespassed into the house of the Petitioner and committed various offences. The complainant reported the matter to the Respondent who is said to have neglected or refused to take any action against the accused. Thereupon, the complainant filed a private complaint on the file of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur, who referred it to the same Sub Inspector, namely, the Respondent herein, for enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is alleged that even then the Respondent would not register a case nor investigate into the complaint, thereby disobeying the law. In spite of several reminders from the Court to the Respondent, he did not discharge his official duty of investigating into the complaint. The Petitioner, as a last resort, had to file a complaint against the Respondent before the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, on 9th November, 1982. The Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate sent a copy of the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, North Arcot. Vellore for appropriate action, but even then the Respondent was supinely inactive. This inaction on the part of the Sub Inspector of Police (Respondent) who is in charge of Law and Order, emboldened the accused to commit further acts of aggression on the complainant on 12th January, 1984.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the learned Counsel for the Respondent who appears to have been engaged privately by the Respondent/accused and I have perused the papers on record and I am satisfied at the end that the entire proceedings of the lower court are vitiated by gross illegalities and improprieties committed by the trial Magistrate. I shall list out the irregularities and the illegalities of the lower court one by one.